Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SELECTION

Mr. Francis Pym discharged from the Committee of Selection; Mr. R. W. Elliott added.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

International Monetary Fund

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake to make a statement to the House after the next review of the United Kingdom economy by the International Monetary Fund in February, 1968.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): The talks with the Fund next month and in July and November will be informal and confidential, and I cannot bind myself to make statements after them.

Mr. Ridley: But if the right hon. Gentleman is a sort of puppet on a string with regard to the International Monetary Fund, should not this House be informed of the conditions which are laid down in relation to the economy?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's permise or the conclusion erected upon it.

Mr. Dickens: What consultations took place with the I.M.F. before the review of public expenditure which was announced last week, and what consultations will take place with the I.M.F. during the preparation of the next Budget?

Mr. Jenkins: I had no consultations with the Fund prior to the review of

public expenditure. There will be consultations in February, as the Answer implies and as the House knows, about the general economic situation, but this will not, of course, include detailed budgetary discussion.

Letter of Intent (Borrowing Requirements)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the tenth paragraph of the letter of intent sent by his predecessor to the International Monetary Fund on 23rd November, 1967, the under taking to keep the borrowing requirement below £1,000 million for 1968–69 includes money borrowed to finance further schemes of nationalisation.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Yes, Sir. Any Government payment that falls to be made in cash enters into the calculation of the borrowing requirement.

Mr. Ridley: Has the right hon. Gentleman therefore taken into account the possible effect of the Transport Bill and other Bills now before the House in agreeing this figure of £1,000 million?

Mr. Jenkins: As I informed the House, all relevant considerations are taken into account.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Blaker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cuts he proposes to make in public spending in order that full advantage may be taken of the opportunities provided by devaluation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has now made with his review of public civil expenditure; whether he will now indicate what specific cuts will be made in 1968–69; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Higgins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what cuts in Government expenditure it is now proposed to make as a result of the review announced on 18th December, 1967.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I refer the hon. Members to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, 16th January, which was published as Command Paper No. 3515.—[Vol. 756, c. 1577–1620].

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that figures published yesterday show that the number of civil servants increased by 57,000 in the three years up to last October? If it is possible to make massive reductions in the Armed Forces, why is it not possible to make similar reductions in the size of the Civil Service, as opposed to just holding the numbers?

Mr. Jenkins: If it were possible to make reductions, I would be eager to do so, and I do not regard what we are laying down for the forthcoming year as being the last word in this respect, but I must have regard to the duties imposed on the Civil Service. I well remember, having been a Departmental Minister myself recently, the pressures which were put upon me from both sides of the House to improve recruitment in many aspects of Government service.

Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures so far published still leave a number of ambiguities? Can he tell us what the figures in the first column in his table of public expenditure for 1967–68 would have been before allowance had been made for the £400 million of cuts announced before Christmas, since it is far from clear what the situation was?

Mr. Jenkins: That is a somewhat hypothetical and detailed question. If the hon. Gentleman would put it down, I should be glad to answer.

Mr. Mendelson: But would my right hon. Friend not agree that the relevant rearrangements are those which will release resources for the export drive? Would he, therefore, not listen to those voices which urge him to produce psychological cuts which show only that we are being harsh to our own people?

Mr. Jenkins: All cuts which produce results are of relevance to the situation, but I intend to have regard to the facts as well as to psychology of the situation.

Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman said that my Question was hypothetical and detailed. What was hypothetical about it and is £400 million a mere detail?

Mr. Jenkins: That sum is not a mere detail, of course, and the situation is set

out as clearly as it can be, but if the hon. Gentleman wants some elucidation and will put down a Question, I will gladly answer it.

Mr. Rankin: Would a cut in private capital wealth not be or more help to the country in its hour of need and would my right hon. Friend consider that?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that that is a different question.

Mr. Gresham Cooke1: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as against the projected savings of £300 million in the recent statement, the winter Supplementary Estimates of this year have already gone up by £320 million?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that certain winter Supplementary Estimates were laid for expenditure which has already taken place, but I am not aware that Members of the Opposition have urged me not to undertake the payments involved, of which the biggest item was for combating foot-and-mouth disease.

Scotland (Government Offices)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs have been created in Scotland in new Government offices or agencies which have been sited there since October, 1964.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 19th December, 1967.—[Vol. 756, col. 354.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Financial Secretary aware that nearly 7,000 of the 7,500 jobs provided in this way in Scotland result from decisions taken by the Conservative Administration before 1964? Does he agree that this shows that the record of his Department has been somewhat meagre?

Mr. Lever: The decisions in many of these matters were taken by the Conservative Party, but they were confirmed and implemented by us. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, in this matter of employment in Scotland, the provision of Government offices is only part of the story and that the Labour Government


have given twice as much money towards encouraging employment in the last three years than did the Conservative Government in a similar period.

Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least two Government agencies in the agricultural sphere, one being the Meat and Livestock Commission, are admirably suited to go to Scotland? Is he further aware that in a letter to the Scottish T.U.C. the other day the Prime Minister said that the Government would continue to look at the possibility of this happening? Is "a look" by the Prime Minister adequate in this matter?

Mr. Lever: We of course do our best to encourage the development of these offices in Scotland, but there are other factors which must be taken into account.

Computer Centres

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will complete consideration of locations for computer centres.

Mr. Harold Lever: I cannot give a date at this stage.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is there any reason why Scotland should not have a second computer centre? Will this be considered?

Mr. Lever: Certainly.

State Lottery

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the evidence submitted to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire in favour of a £1 million a week prize State lottery producing a net profit to the Exchequer of £200 million a year, he will take steps to introduce such a weekly lottery.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: My hon. Friend's suggestion will receive the same consideration as do the many other suggestions for raising revenue which I receive.

Mr. Roberts: This may be what I am afraid of. Would not my right hon. Friend agree that a lottery of this type, given maximum publicity—with £1 million in prizes being shown on television and tickets costing Is. each on sale in

shops generally—could contribute materially to Exchequer revenue?

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend should bear in mind that I have not yet had very much opportunity for considering suggestions for raising revenue, so we had better see how that works out. I will, of course, take all considerations into account, including the factors which he has quite fairly brought to the notice of the House. Hon. Members will be aware that there is a Private Member's Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) due to be discussed in the near future.

Mr. Tinn: Would my right hon. Friend seriously consider giving his support to that Bill, to which I hope the House will give a Second Reading?

Sir G. Nabarro: Certainly not.

Mr. Jenkins: I will certainly be interested to see what view the House takes on the Bill.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Chancellor bear in mind the fact that there is a good deal of opinion in this House and elsewhere that gambling in Britain is already excessive and that for the State to add no the burden would be immoral and unacceptable to millions of men and women in this country? Will he study the Churches Commission on Gambling to ascertain the facts of the situation?

Mr. Jenkins: In. my previous job I had a good deal of contact with the Churches Commission on Gambling, and, on the whole, I prefer to have the Commission's advice direct rather than via the hon. Gentleman—however powerful, even if unauthorised, a spokesman he may be.

Wealth (Distribution)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the fact that the richest 10 per cent, of the population own more than three-quarters of the total individual wealth, what legislative plans he has to provide for a fairer redistribution.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that I cannot anticipate fiscal legislation.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In spite of that, would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in principle, restraint by wage earners on the one hand and gross inequality of wealth on the other are incompatible with each other?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that, even in principle, I should not anticipate fiscal legislation.

Mr. Cant: Will my right hon. Friend avoid the habit, to which some Chancellors are prone, of introducing new taxes without due consideration? While agreeing with the principle of a wealth tax, may I ask him to accept that he should set up a working party to conduct a full investigation into this type of tax with a view to introducing it in 1970?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I will take note of what my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not the Chancellor recognise that the greatest need now is to increase incentives to the acquisition of wealth rather than to add to the disincentives to its holding?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I will take note of all the advice I am given by all sides.

Private Education (Tax)

Mr. Judd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make arrangements to estimate the total amount of Income Tax exemption in 1967–68, in respect of fees paid for private education.

Mr. Harold Lever: If my hon. Friend is referring to the exemption of the profits of schools which are recognised as charities, I am afraid that the Inland Revenue does not have the information which would be needed in order to make the estimate.

Mr. Judd: At a time when we have had to significantly reduce our educational commitments, would not my hon. Friend agree that the country can no longer afford what is a subsidy to private education on the present scale?

Mr. Lever: I am afraid that, without the figures, it is difficult to assess the gravity of the matter, as my hon. Friend would wish to have it assessed.

Mr. Evelyn King: Would the Financial Secretary say how many millions of £s are saved to the State by parents who freely and willingly choose to bear their own children's educational costs? Would

the Treasury care to pay tribute to those who are saving the nation a great deal of money in this way?

Mr. Lever: I am not able to document that debating point, either.

Developing Countries

Mr. Judd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he will make concerning the needs of developing countries in the context of measures for improved international liquidity.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The new I.M.F. scheme for special drawing rights will, when activated, be of both direct and indirect benefit to the developing countries.

Mr. Judd: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that at a time when Britain is giving a lead in this matter, many of us would welcome any initiative we might show to look at the real needs of the developing countries in this respect?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Sir, and I would like to see this scheme activated as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so. It would, as I say, help the developing countries both by increasing their liquidity and by increasing the liquidity of other countries, a matter of importance to them from the point of view of world trade and aid.

Mr. Maclennan: While recognising that any improvement in the world liquidity situation would be of enormous benefit to the under-developed countries, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is looking at the proposals which have been made for linking access to rights with assistance to under-developed countries, in particular the proposals which have been put forward by Mr. Maxwell Stamp?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of these proposals and I am aware of the general proposition which my hon. Friend puts forward. I think that such a link could be a useful device at some stage, but I believe that the first task is to get the special drawing rights established and accepted.

Corporation Tax

Mr. Alison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has made of the extent to which the introduction of Corporation Tax in 1965 has led to an increase in company profit retentions in

Mr. Roy Jenkins: These matters are kept under continuous review. Special factors affected the periods for which figures are so far available and it is too early to draw any firm conclusions about the effect of Corporation Tax on company retentions.

Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reviews under which this is continually kept is the Board of Trade regular survey sample of companies and that the latest survey suggests that in the 12 months ending 1st October, 1967, the level of company retentions dropped by £75 million compared with 1965? Is this the rational aim of Corporation Tax and recent increases in the tax?

Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir, but special factors have operated in the last two years or so. While we will certainly continue to watch the position carefully, I would expect a different position to develop in future.

Spirits (Excise Duty)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to separate the duty on spirits from die regulator.

Mr. Harold Lever: No, Sir.

Mr. Campbell: Why is this not being done following the discussion on the last Finance Act? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that otherwise the Government may find that they are having automatically to raise the duty on Scotch whisky to an incrediable figure, thus damaging an important export-earning industry?

Mr. Lever: This proposal was debated and rejected on a Division during the Report stage of the last Finance Act. I am afraid that I cannot go beyond that.

Non-industrial Civil Servants

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many non-industrial civil servants there were at the latest convenient date; how this compares with the number a year previously; and what functions now performed by the central Government he

proposes to eliminate in order to secure a reduction in these figures.

Mr. Harold Lever: In October, 1967, 469,670. The comparable figure for October, 1966, was 440,400. Future work will reflect the policy changes announced on 16th January.—[Vol. 756, c. 1591.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the last Answer mean that the figure will increase or decrease? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the very heavy calls on manpower and finance which result from this steady increase in the non-industrial Civil Service? Cannot the Government get rid of some of its functions, perhaps starting with the Land Commission?

Mr. Lever: In fact, in accordance with decisions already taken by the House, we had anticipated a significant increase— of 11,000 above those figures—in the Civil Service concerned. We will try to hold that increase back to the present numbers, which will, in effect—in order to implement the policy decisions of the House—amount to a cut in the numbers employed.

Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend note that, when it suits their purpose, hon. Gentlemen opposite, acting as constituency Members exert all sorts of pressures for works and services to be carried out in the constituencies, and then, when acting as a body, they are opposed to an increase in the number of civil servants? Will he ignore this masochism and see that, if it means that this Civil Service has a contribution to make in the provision of civil services, its numbers will not in any way be cut down?

Mr. Lever: It is interesting to note that the percentage of the working population employed in the Civil Service compared with 15 years ago shows that, if anything, there has been a slight reduction in the proportions. I take fully into account the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to restore the cuts made in Government investment in nationalised industries.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) on 17th January.—[Vol. 756, c. 649.]

Mr. Tuck: What about the pre-election pledges that if private industry could not do the job the Government would step in and establish industries themselves? Where is the science-based industry we have heard so much about?

Mr. Jenkins: I think my hon. Friend is talking about two different things, public industry stepping into new fields and investment programmes of industries which are nationalised at present. Certain cuts were made there which it was thought reasonable and economical to make, but of course investment in nationalised industries is as important to the industrial infrastructure of the country as investment made in other industries.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a revised annual estimate of central and local government expenditure and the expected net capital borrowing requirements of the nationalised industries for the financial years 1968–69 to 1970–71.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Public expenditure estimates for 1968–69 and 1969–70 have been published in the OFFICIAL REPORT following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, 16th January, and also in Command Paper No. 3515. Public expenditure estimates for 1970–71 are not available. The borrowing requirements of the nationalised industries in 1968–69, but not in the later years, will be published at the time of the Budget as usual.— [Vol. 756, cc. 1577–1620.]

Mr. Biffen: The Chancellor will recollect that the White Paper gives the figure for the nationalised industries as an aggregate one. Since that must have been arrived at from the component totals of each nationalised industry, can he, for the convenience of the House, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the component figures?

Mr. Jenkins: Not in answer to a supplementary question, but if the Question is tabled I will answer it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that this revision will involve no alteration in the 4 per cent, housing loans undertaken by the 1967 Act?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that that begins to arise on this Question.

Mr. Higgins: The Chancellor is not listening. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked whether the Chancellor would circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Will he do so or will he not?

Mr. Jenkins: I am sorry. I understood the hon. Gentleman to ask whether I would state them in answer to a supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry. If that is the case, I will certainly circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT any available figures which are of use to the House.

Export Rebate

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to restore the export rebate.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Our exports have been made more competitive by devaluation and under present circumstances the Government have no intention to restore this rebate.

Mr. Tuck: Is it not about time that the Government realised that it is no use their sitting with their backsides in a trough full of cold water which is rapidly freezing, surrounded on all sides by guns, but that they ought to get out and heat that trough and get ahead with producing wealth and encouraging exports?

Mr. Jenkins: I found my hon. Friend's metaphor a little mixed, but I endeavoured to follow it is closely as I could. It certainly is our intention to get out and increase exports, but it has also to be borne in mind, as I have told the House on previous occasions, that there is a danger of escalating protectionism throughout the world and we have to be careful not to assist that process.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: What representations did the Government receive from the Americans in regard to our export rebate, and what representations have the British Government made to the


American Administration about the proposals announced by President Johnson recently?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think it is primarily a matter of representations, but we must watch and see very carefully what the Americans do about the possible introduction of an export rebate.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend take up strongly with the United States Government this action, which may have a very harmful effect on our exports to the United States when, as he mentioned, we voluntarily withdrew ours?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that the American action could have a very adverse effect and could lead to a very undesirable process. We must consider our own position in relation to what they may or may not do.

Sir S. McAdden: Can the Chancellor tell us, if this export rebate was so soon to be done for, what it was begun for?

Mr. Jenkins: It was begun in circumstances in which devaluation had not given our exports a competitive advantage, in order to give them a small competitive advantage. The advantage arising from devaluation, if fully exploited, should of course be far bigger than anything resulting from the export rebate.

Close Companies (Dividends)

Mr. Costain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that the Inland Revenue does not cause close companies to declare higher dividends than are consistent with the Government's policy of dividend restraint.

Mr. Harold Lever: No special steps are required.

Mr. Costain: Does not the Financial Secretary accept that there is confusion in different policies involved here? What steps will he take to see that they do not conflict with each other?

Mr. Lever: There is in fact no conflict between provisions relating to close companies and the Government request for dividend restraint by publicly quoted companies for reasons which have emerged in the creation of this set-up.

Valuers

Mr. Costain: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many qualified valuers are employed in the Government's service; whether he is satisfied that the number is adequate to deal properly with the valuations instituted by the Capital Gains Tax and the betterment levy; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harold Lever: At 1st January, 1968, there were 2,154 qualified valuers serving in the Valuation Office. Despite the shortage of valuers and the pressure of work upon the office, I have no reason to think that the valuations to which the hon. Member refers are not being properly dealt with.

Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that there is delay in valuations due to the shortage of valuers? What steps will he take to ensure that the Chancellor in his next Budget does not make any more legislation which needs more valuers?

Mr. Lever: The office is certainly working under pressure but getting on quite satisfactorily with its work. As to the future, in view of the national shortage of qualified valuers, the Inland Revenue is trying to train some younger people and has 335 cadet valuers in post at present.

Mr. Tinn: Does my hon. Friend recall that I drew his attention recently to two cases of newly established firms in my constituency, in a development area, which are being seriously inconvenienced by delays in valuation?

Mr. Lever: I think that is a different point, but if my hon. Friend finds that the delay has not been cured I shall be happy to take the matter up.

National Savings

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net increase in National Savings in 1967; and what were the comparable figures for 1966, 1964 and 1962, respectively.

Mr. Harold Lever: £108 million, a decrease of £29·5 million, £357 million and £238 million respectively. The 1967 figure is partially estimated.

Mr. Taylor: As the best way in which the average citizen can back Britain is through National Savings, what new initiative is the Financial Secretary taking to restore the 1964 figure?

Mr. Lever: These selected figures given in answer to a selective Question reflect among other things very heavy Defence Bond redemptions in 1967, which were very much higher than in the earlier years which appear more favourable. The hon. Member can rest assured that we have very much in mind the necessity to give maximum continuous encouragement to National Savings.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the Financial Secretary agree that, quite apart from particular years, more genuine new savings mean a less need for taxation, and therefore will he urge on the Chancellor speedy action and include within that action maximum encouragement to saving?

Mr. Lever: I would entirely agree with the first proposition. In so far as my right hon. Friend needs any encouragement on the second, he will certainly have it from me.

Taxation

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount he now estimates will be raised in taxation in the year 1967–68.

Mr. Harold Lever: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the revised estimates which will be published in the Financial Statement.

Mr. Taylor: Would the Financial Secretary agree that the burden of taxation under this Government has become quite intolerable and is stifling initiative and enterprise? Will he ask his right hon. Friend seriously to refute that taxation must go up again in March?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Member's supplementary question, I fear, bears little relation to his main Question. I take it that he was not asking for a specific answer to his rhetoric.

European-based Companies (Development)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to promote the free movement of capital

and revise Corporation Tax, in order to facilitate the development of European-based companies able to compete on an international scale in advanced technologies.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: None, Sir. But the subject of technological co-operation will play an important part in the consultations we are now to have with our colleagues in Europe.

Mr. Biffen: None the less, would the Chancellor take this opportunity of affirming that it is a first priority of the Government, as indicated in the Letter of Intent, that as soon as the balance of payments shows a definite improvement policy will be taken to promote greater freedom of movement of capital?

Mr. Jenkins: This is a wider question than the one the hon. Member originally asked. I am most anxious to encourage technological co-operation. There is no evidence that this is being held back by lack of freedom of movement of capital at present. The position remains as stated in the Letter of Intent, although I am not quite sure that the hon. Member stated it precisely.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The question also refers to Corporation Tax. The Chancellor will note that our system differs radically from that around which the Europeans will harmonise. What are his proposals to revise our system of Corporation Tax to harmonise with theirs?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member can hardly think that I am going to tell him that now.

Gold

Mr. Roebuck: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the consultations he has had with representatives of the United States Government with a view to securing the demonetisation of gold.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have had no such consultations.

Mr. Roebuck: Might not the step indicated in my Question well curb the monkey tricks of General de Gaulle? Is it not rather sad that my right hon. Friend is prepared to act as General de Gaulle's poodle and to kick in the teeth Commonwealth Prime Ministers from South-East


Asia in pursuing his curious doctrine of wanting to get into Europe?

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend, who has strong views on this and on many other matters, seems to be raising a large number of issues which do not arise directly from the question whether I should or should not consult the United States Government about the demonetisation of gold.

Scotland

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will publish a White Paper on the effects of devaluation and the connected measures upon Scotland.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir.

Mr. Campbell: As the Secretary of State for Scotland has limited his statements to the fields within the responsibility of the Scottish Office, will the Government issue a comprehensive statement, including, for example, one concerning the investment grant postponement, since these grants form one of the main benefits of a development area?

Mr. Jenkins: Scotland, like other development areas, has been protected, in that there have been no cuts in development area expenditure. I do not think that it would be particularly useful to publish a White Paper dealing with the effects of devaluation upon a particular part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will not my right hon. Friend consider publishing a White Paper showing the effects of these cuts on the Scottish Departments? Is he aware that we are all very anxious to know how the cuts will affect health services, housing, and education? Surely there is nothing inconsistent with Government policy in our being told the facts about Scotland.

Mr. Jenkins: I am very anxious that the House should know the facts about Scotland and about other matters, but I think that a detailed breakdown of the sort my hon. Friend refers to is within the purview of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than of myself.

Mr. MacArthur: Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this position? Is he not aware that for some months the Government have been making it clear that there are to be cuts in Scotland and that local authorities and other bodies in Scotland are waiting to have details of these cuts? We know that the road, education, and housing programmes are to be slashed. There will also be cuts in local authority investment programmes. What are the details of these cuts? Why will not the Government come clean and tell us what the cuts are to be?

Mr. Jenkins: The details of these cuts, as with the details of cuts for England and Wales, have been outlined. If any further Questions arise, they should be tabled to the Ministers concerned.

Shipbuilding

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the shipbuilder's relief is to be withdrawn, as well as the export rebate, to which shipbuilders were entitled as an option.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's statement on this in the House on 22nd November, 1967.—[Vol. 754, c. 1434.]

Mr. Digby: Has the Chancellor of the Exchequer taken into account the fact that in fixed price contracts already negotiated this relief has been taken into account and that he is placing a new burden on the industry?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not placing a new burden on the industry because, as my right hon. Friend made clear, the industry is maintaining the relief which it had, which was an alternative to the export rebate, which rebate is being abolished, but it is not being abolished for the shipbuilding industry.

Gaming Machines (Tax)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his present estimate of the income from the tax on gaming machines.

Mr. Harold Lever: The Budget estimates included a little under £3 million on this account.

Mr. Gardner: I accept that it is a useful and honourable way of raising revenue, but does not my hon. Friend think that to charge a tax of £75 on a bona fide sporting club which makes a net profit of just over £125 from a machine is a little unfair? Will he ask the Chancellor to look at this matter when he is preparing his Budget?

Mr. Lever: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend to look at the matter, but I know that my right hon. Friend would not wish at this point to have any comment on this subject from me.

Income Tax Allowances (Dependants)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Inland Revenue Department that when Income Tax allowances for dependants are discontinued those concerned should be given details of assistance available from the Ministry of Social Security.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: There would be great difficulty in putting upon the Inland Revenue responsibility for advising about the whole possible range of social security benefits.

Mr. Gardner: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is a humane service which might be provided? Is he aware that people are often denied supplementary benefits which are available to them, even after weeks, indeed years, of argument with the Inland Revenue authorities about tax allowances, simply because no one tells them? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Jenkins: I am aware of the particular case which brought this matter to my hon. Friend's attention. I am glad that he chooses to present the Inland Revenue in a humane way. The Inland Revenue is a very heavily burdened Department and there are limits to the burdens which I can or should place upon them.

Civil Servants

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reduction he in tends to make in the number of civil servants as a result of proposed cuts in Government expenditure following devaluation.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is now taking to curb the growth in numbers of civil servants.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is the intention, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 16th January, to plan the staffing of Departments in such a way that over the year 1968–69 there will be no further net increase in the number of civil servants as a whole.—[Vol. 756, c. 1591.]

Mr. Goodhart: As the Chancellor himself presides over one of the Departments which has grown most rapidly in the past three years, will he give the House a firm assurance that the staff of the Inland Revenue will not increase this year?

Mr. Jenkins: I am certainly applying this stringency to Departments, including those within my immediate purview, but I could not give a particular assurance at this stage about any particular Department.

Mr. Ridsdale: What proportion of the increase of 57,000 civil servants since 1964 is permanent and what proportion is temporary? How many of the 200,000 extra local government employees are permanent and how many are temporary?

Mr. Jenkins: I could not say that without notice.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will not the introduction of prescription charges involve additional civil servants? Does he not want to abandon this absurd project?

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No. I think that my hon. Friend underlines the general plea that policy changes, many of them advocated from both sides of the House——

Mr. Manuel: Not this one, though.

Mr. Jenkins: Not exactly all of them—are much easier to advocate than it is to realise what it means in terms of civil servants.

Sir J. Eden: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can do better than that? Why cannot he make a start with the occupants of No. 10? Is it not clear that they are all redundant?

Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Public Sector (Investment)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much investment in the public sector rose in the third quarter of this year, before devaluation.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Public sector fixed investment, revalued at 1958 prices and seasonally adjusted, increased by 1½ per cent, between the second and third quarters of 1967.

Mr. Digby: Did it not increase by no less than 7 per cent, in the previous quarter, at a time when investment in manufacturing industry was declining? Is not this most undesirable?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks is undesirable, he fact that there was a greater increase in the second quarter or a very much smaller increase in the third quarter.

Bank of France (Central Bank Arrangements)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will renew Central Bank swap arrangements with the Bank of France.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: These arrangements continue in being.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: May we take it from that most welcome news that the French Government can be relied on to report on the progress of the British attempt to return to solvency and keep the Government up to the mark, when the Chancellor appears to lack the determination to do so, judging by last week's events?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman constructs extremely elaborate supplementary questions. My answer to the Question relates to the Bank of France. I answered the Question which was asked.

Tax Collection

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, before considering rates of tax generally in preparing the next Budget, he will ascertain how much solicitors for Government Departments are trying to collect in over due Income Tax, Surtax, pay-as-you-earn,

Corporation Tax and Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Harold Lever: It would not be possible to ascertain this amount without a disproportionate amount of work.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the Financial Secretary agree that there are probably tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions, overdue in the hands of Government solicitors, and that if he collected all that money there need not be any increase in taxation on 19th March?

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman is the first hon. Member—and I hear from many of them—to suggest that the Inland Revenue is too lenient in enforcing the collection of taxation.

Steel Industry (Borrowing Requirement)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the borrowing requirement of the nationalised steel industry has been taken into account in arriving at the forecast of the net borrowing requirement for 1968 contained in his predecessor's Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: The needs of the British Steel Corporation, as of other nationalised industries, were borne in mind in arriving at the figure of £1,000 million.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friends are very keen to talk about sacrifices by others. Is not it time the Government started to sacrifice some of their own claptrap about nationalisation in order to enable us to satisfy our creditors in the terms they are laying down for us?

Mr. Jenkins: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about claptrap, he should ask a supplementary question relating to the Question he put down and not something he prepared. The Question relates to the borrowing requirement of a nationalised industry, and no doubt he would wish on reflection, as would the whole House, the proper capital requirements of that industry to be met.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a most surprising


question from a Scottish Tory, because this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee Scottish Tories urged far greater expenditure on national sewage?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not in the least surprised to be informed that, even in the Scottish Grand Committee, there is a contradiction between what hon. Members opposite say in particular and what they say in general.

Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman has not read the Question. It is not whether the industry's borrowing requirement has been borne in mind but to what extent it has been taken into account. Will he answer that question?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Sir. But I think that what the hon. Gentleman probably does not appreciate is that the borrowing requirement is not directly related to any particular item of expenditure, whether current or capital, but is the difference between the total of Government expenditure and the amount brought in in revenue. It is therefore not possible to answer the question in as precise a manner as the hon. Gentleman would like. But certainly it was taken fully into account.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

Suez Finance Company

Mr. Alison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to their official holdings in securities of the Suez Finance Company.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Her Majesty's Government are not seeking to dispose of the shares at present.

Mr. Alison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who now controls the company, where most of the assets are held, in Egypt or outside, and how the security of our assets is likely to be affected by recent events in the Middle East, particularly our proposal to withdraw from that area?

Mr. Jenkins: The company is under French control and my understanding is that most of the assets are held outside

the Middle East. The company is to a very large extent a general investment company.

Imports

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to checking imports, he will require importers to pay cash at the time of the placing of the order, in accordance with the system, details of which have been sent to him, adopted a few years ago in Italy with satisfactory results for the Italian balance of payments.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. I am not convinced that such a scheme could usefully be introduced in this country.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The scheme as put in the Question is perhaps a little exaggerated. But would the right hon. Gentleman take it from me, for I was in Italy in April, 1964, when the Italian Government required importers to pay cash within 30 days of the goods arriving, that it had a very salutary effect on the Italian balance of payments at that time? Would he consider something along those lines?

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, as he puts it, the facts in the Question were a little exaggerated. They were somewhat inaccurate, but I did not point that out until he raised it. But he subsequently raised the question again accurately, and it is true that in 1964–65 die Italian Government made a remarkable swing-round from a position of deficit to a very large surplus, but it is difficult to argue that that particular proposal was unique amongst those which effected that. There would be certain practical difficulties about applying it here in present circumstances.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will my right hon. Friend not be so ready to dismiss the suggestion out of hand? Is he aware that a great many goods are being imported into this country that we do not need and cannot afford and are bad for the country's economic health? While none of us wish to be identified as protectionists in outlook, because we are an exporting nation, there is a point where reason flies out of the window and common prudence and ability exercised by many of our international competitors is


not matched by equal vigilance at our own ports.

Mr. Jenkins: I was at fault if I gave the impression that I dismissed this or any similar suggestion out of hand. All these suggestions must be considered very seriously, but I am not convinced that this would be a useful measure at present. Apart from anything else, its immediate impact would be to worsen our short-term balance of payments.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. (FINANCIAL AND PROPERTY CLAIMS)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in finalising the Agreement reached between him and Mr. Kosygin in February, 1967, en the settlement of mutual financial and property claims between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): I have been asked to reply.
As the House knows, the Agreement was signed on 5th January.

Mr. Blaker: Why have the Government agreed to pay over to the Soviet Government £500,000 from the assets in this country, which would otherwise have been available to help meet the claims of the British claimants? Are not the British claims bigger than the Soviet claims? If any such payment were to be made, should not it have been the other way around?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I think that everybody who really thinks about this will realise that it was a very good business to get this Agreement out and to be able to settle it as we have for all the claimants, and that the payment out to the Soviet Union was very well worth doing.

Mr. Heath: In order that the House can form a judgment about this, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the break-up of the respective claims to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, showing how the final conclusion was reached? Will he give the House the exact date on which the gold which had been deposited here by the central banks

of the three countries concerned was exchanged—shall we say—for Treasury bonds? Does he still recognise the claim of the central banks on this gold?

Mr. Brown: I shall certainly arrange for the date on which the gold was, as the right hon. Gentleman delicately puts it, "exchanged" to be published, and I shall certainly consider the question of the break-up. My immediate reaction is that I see no reason why I should not publish that, but I should like to consider it. The third question was?——

Mr. Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman still recognise the claims of the central banks on the gold?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I think that this must be regarded as a settlement of the whole thing.

Sir T. Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed Agreement seems to quite a number of people morally and legally doubtful? Since it must be subject to Parliamentary approval, will he say why the £500,000 has already been deposited in the Bank of England to the credit of the Soviet Union without Parliament being consulted?

Mr. Brown: The Agreement will be subject in due course to Parliamentary approval. If Parliament turns it down, that will be that. Our own judgment— and we are for the moment the Government—[Laughter.]—for the moment and for a long time to come—is that this is a very good Agreement and that it was well worth getting out in this way.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is true that the other three countries have been absorbed into the Soviet Union. Should they by any chance regain their nationality at some future point, would the right hon. Gentleman consider, before Parliament discusses this again, whether the debt could not be honoured in those circumstances?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has been much longer in my job than I have. He is therefore much better able to assess possible eventualities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In that situation I repeat to him that he would have liked to be able to make this Agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend on 18th January to Questions by the hon. Members for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) and for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).—[Vol. 756, c. 1950.]

Mr. Wall: Is it not now clear that the initiative lies with the Rhodesians and that very soon they are likely to break their last links with this country? Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider making some concessions at least to salve something from the debacle of Government policy?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure who the hon. Gentleman thinks has to salve something from whose debacle. We have gone as far as we could go; the Smith régime has not moved at all. We both know that there are situations which, if they wished, they could take hold of and help. I do not think that we are called upon to do anything else now except to hold on to the course which not only we but the world outside believe to be the right course.

Mr. Heath: Is the Foreign Secretary, therefore, saying that Her Majesty's Government propose to take no steps whatever to try to overcome the obstacles which emerged during the Commonwealth Secretary's visit to Rhodesia?

Mr. Brown: No obstacles emerged during the Commonwealth Secretary's visit. The obstacles are that the Smith régime went back on agreements and arrangements which Smith had made. Difficulties are rising in Rhodesia. I suggest that the right thing for all of us to do is to hold the position and wait until people in Rhodesia understand what is happening, as, I believe, many of them are doing.

Mr. William Hamilton: What formal knowledge does my right hon. Friend have of the development of an opposition party in Rhodesia, an opposition to the illegal Smith régime? What steps are

the Government taking to tighten up sanctions to expedite that development?

Mr. Brown: The tightening up of sanctions, which are a matter of a mandatory resolution of the U.N., is, of course, for the United Nations. As for what develops in Rhodesia, on the whole I would not help events if I were to comment too much.

Mr. Heath: I must press the Foreign Secretary. During the Commonwealth Secretary's visit, Mr. Smith asked for certain changes to be made in the "Tiger" constitution, changes which Her Majesty's Government said they found unacceptable. Is the Foreign Secretary saying that the Government are to take absolutely no action whatever to try to find ways round those difficulties with Mr. Smith?

Mr. Brown: What I am saying is that Mr. Smith has gone so far back on agreements which he made that it is not for us to find ways round the difficulty. It is for him to go back to the agreement which he made and to work it out with his own people. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that he would do far better making that plain to Mr. Smith than trying to lecture us.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the "Tiger" constitution the Smith régime has introduced a great deal of racialist and repressive legislation which is moving it far away from the community of nations?

Mr. Brown: That may well be so. At the time of the "Tiger" constitution, we thought that we had an arrangement on which we could get an honourable settlement. It is still the purpose of the Government to get an honourable settlement. I do not think that we can be asked to be those who move from here.

Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon.Gentleman mean by his statement that there has been no further contact between the British Government and the Rhodesian Government——

Mr. Faulds: What?

Mr. Sandys: —between the British Government and the Rhodesian Government——

Mr. Faulds: Since when was it a Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must contain himself.

Mr. Sandys: —since the Commonwealth Secretary's visit? Does the right lion. Gentleman realise that if he allows things just to drift, he will find that the Rhodesian authorities have set up a new constitution and that after that there will be no possibility of a settlement?

Mr. Brown: Even knowing the right hon. Gentleman as well as I do, I am very surprised that he should espouse an illegal régime as he does. We have contacts with the Governor; we do not have contacts in that sense with an illegal régime.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to develop alternative economic and technological links.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the British application to enter the European Economic Community.

Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add to the Statement I made to the House on 20th December.—[Vol. 756, c. 1267.]

Mr. Roberts: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that we should now concentrate on economic and technological links in and out of Europe and forget our application, which is a dead duck? Would he further agree that we should now consider joining only when we are asked and on our terms?

Mr. Brown: I am sorry that I do not agree with that. I would like to do so, because I like my hon. Friend, but I do not agree with it. We must pursue our decision to become full members of the Community, partly because of its economic advantages and partly because of the political advantages for Europe. But I

agree with my hon. Friend that in the meantime, while progress towards that desirable end is blocked, we should make as much progress as we can, technological and every other kind of progress, outside the Community.

Mr. Winnick: While it is inevitable that sooner or later we shall join with other countries in a wider European community, why should we not accept the realities of life and see that there is no chance of our entering the Common Market for some time to come?

Mr. Brown: Very often my hon. Friend's views on what are the realities of life and mine seem to differ. I still wish to try to arrange that we should become, with others, members of an enlarged community, as my hon. Friend puts it, as soon as possible, but I repeat that, in the meantime, we will do what we can to develop associations outside the Community while waiting to get the wider Europe for which we are looking.

Mr. David Howell: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent Benelux proposals for closer economic and political links between the Five and Britain and the three other countries seeking entry to the Common Market, links outside the Treaty of Rome? What view does the right hon. Gentleman take of that?

Mr. Brown: Of course I have seen them, and there is a great deal to be said for what is proposed. I am now considering what reply to make to Benelux and the other countries.

Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the Benelux memorandum so that we can see exactly what is proposed? Would he also confirm that what he is now considering is consultation about matters outside the Treaty of Rome between the Six and ourselves and not between five or four or three members of the Six and ourselves?

Mr. Brown: I thought that the Benelux proposals were already published, but of course I shall place them in the Library. As to developments outside the Common Market, it is no part of our business to disrupt the Community. Quite clearly, as we want to join the Community, nothing could be more stupid than to disrupt it. Therefore, if we could develop associations and


arrangements with the Six outside the Treaty of Rome, that would be perfect, but if we cannot it would be silly to deny ourselves the opportunity to develop them with those European countries with whom we can develop them, and we are pursuing every channel.

Mr. Shinwell: In my right hon. Friend's original Answer to the Question, he informed the House that he had nothing more to say. Could he not have contented himself with that observation? In view of the economic plight in which we find ourselves and as there is a great deal of muddle—[Laughter.]—we know that there is muddle on the other side of the House and there is a great deal of muddle in the country—which causes confusion, why do the Government bother about this Common Market business? Why should they not be quiet about it?

Mr. Brown: I do not accept what my right hon. Friend says about muddle. I do not accept that he or I or any of us in the House can ignore what will happen in the next decade, much less ignore what will happen over the next two decades. This will certainly require that we develop a more integrated Europe. I believe that my right hon. Friend and I owe it to those to whom we are to hand over affairs—[Laughter.]—the other side are clearly giggling a bit early in the day; the people to whom we will hand over affairs are my children and my grandchildren, and the children and grandchildren of others, and we need to hand over to them a more integrated Europe, a Europe playing a more powerful political part than the present disorganised Europe plays. My right hon. Friend and I ought to be devoting all our time to trying to bring that about.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will the Foreign Secretary suggest to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology that when he speaks on Monday in the Council of Europe Assembly he should suggest for discussion the planning of a technological link, adaptable both to our associations with the Six and also to an expanding Community?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has that very much in mind. One of the

contributions that we can make, not by any means the only one, to a more integrated Europe is through technological development, putting our capacity for research and development and production in the greater home market. I would be very surprised if my right hon. Friend does not make exactly that point when he speaks.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Private Notice Question, Mr. Braine.

MAURITIUS (STATE OF EMERGENCY)

Mr. Braine: Mr. Braine (by Private Notice) asked the Commonwealth Secretary whether he will make a statement about the declaration of a state of emergency in Mauritius, and the sending of British troops from Singapore to restore order.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): I very much regret to inform the House that there has been rioting leading to loss of life in Mauritius. A state of emergency has been declared and British reinforcements despatched. On 21st January the Governor informed me that there had been a series of brawls between communal gangs in Eastern Port Louis and these had escalated in violence and extent.
After consultation with the Prime Minister of Mauritius the Governor decided to declare a state of emergency in the eastern part of Port Louis. By yesterday, 22nd January, the violence had spread still further and the total number of dead had reached 14. The Governor therefore extended the state of emergency to cover the whole island. In these circumstances, both the Governor and the Prime Minister agreed that it was necessary to request military reinforcements. A small contingent of the King's Shropshire Light Infantry was sent to Mauritius and the first elements have already arrived in Mauritius. Two frigates are also on their way.
Within the last half hour I have been in telephonic communication with the Governor. I regret to say that the death roll has now reached 17. The Governor however, tells me that the island is now quieter though there is still danger of


outbreaks. Some shops remain shut in Port Louis, and there is a refugee problem with which the Government are coping.
Political leaders of the Mauritius Government and of the Opposition in Mauritius have both deplored this outbreak of violence. The whole House will share my hope that the Mauritius security forces will soon succeed in restoring order.

Mr. Braine: The House will be both distressed at these happenings and quick to note how fortunate it was that British troops were so readily available.
May I ask the Secretary of State two questions? Is he satisfied that the small contingent to which he referred is sufficient to restore order, and will he keep the House informed if there is any change in the situation? Secondly, is lie aware that although independence is clue on 12th March—a very short time away—the Government have been so far quite unable to inform Parliament about the promised defence agreement and arrangements for internal security which are to take effect after independence?
Can he say, therefore, whether it is proposed to adhere to the independence timetable even if, unhappily, the state of emergency continues?

Mr. Thomson: I am, of course, satisfied that in the present situation the number of troops sent is adequate. I shall continue to watch this situation very carefully indeed.
In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I have nothing to add to what the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs told the hon Gentleman in the debate on Friday. I see no reason, in these regrettable disturbances, for reconsidering the date of independence.

Mr. James Johnson: I am choosing my words carefully. Is the Minister not aware that this gang warfare between the Moslems and the Creoles in Port Louis stems from a shabby deal over the choice of the mayor which was originally offered to the Moslem leader? This pledge was not carried out by the Parti Mauricien and hence we have had the fanning of much wider sections of violence by agents provocateurs who did not like the last independence elections?

Mr. Thomson: I would not like to follow my hon. Friend in his speculations as to the reasons. I would content myself with quoting to the House the explanation that the Governor gave to the people of Mauritius in his broadcast on Sunday evening. He said:
I do not want to go too deeply into the causes of this violence at this stage.
He said that there was nothing at all to suggest that this was politically inspired and motivated and added:
It appears to have its roots in gang rivalry.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it intended that the defence agreement with Mauritius will or will not provide for measures to assist in the preservation of law and order internally?

Mr. Thomson: These events do not directly affect our undertaking at the Constitutional Conference of 1965, to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, to make an agreement with Mauritius covering mutual defence arrangements after independence. Naturally, pending negotiations on the actual arrangements, the details of these negotiations must remain confidential.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can my right hon. Friend say how well the Mauritius Government are coping with the refugee problem? Will he make further inquiries about this to see what help, other than military reinforcements, we can provide?

Mr. Thomson: Yes. I have only heard half an hour ago from the Governor that a refugee problem is, regrettably, one of the by-products of this violence. We shall certainly look closely into what we can do to help.

Mr. Maudling: Will any defence agreement in Mauritius make sense once we have left east of Suez?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. I think that it may well make sense but, obviously, these are matters that have to be very closely studied.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Commonwealth Secretary aware that those who have been critical of our east of Suez presence have always made it clear that some provision should be made in the way of a small residual presence, in Australia perhaps, for maintaining—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This was always included


in the costings of resolutions passed at Parliamentary conferences and elsewhere. Is he aware that we have always said that there should be a small residual presence to look after our remaining commitments with the Colonies and Dependent Territories after we left? What do the Government propose for these residual Dependencies, the Solomon Islands and Mauritius, after we have left unless there is a residual presence in Australia?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend is perfectly right in the point that he is making. The House ought to recall that if, given such events, it was decided to send forces to Mauritius after we had withdrawn from Singapore, we should do so from our general capability bases in Europe, including the United Kingdom. We have always made it perfectly plain that we would have a continuing responsibility for maintaining internal security in our Dependencies, and we shall, of course, have to have the capability to do that.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the root cause of the trouble in Mauritius is growing unemployment? Would the Secretary of State consider bringing forward the financial talks that he is to have with the Mauritius Government?

Mr. Thomson: There are a great many things to be done between now and independence. The timetable for the financial talks has been agreed between the two Governments, and I do not think that these events would make it any more advantageous to try to rush the financial talks.

Mr. Heath: Will the defence agreement with Mauritius depend for its implementation, should over-flying rights not be available, on the use of Simonstown?

Mr. Thomson: We envisage that after 1971 there will be a number of route options open to us to fulfil our responsibilities in Mauritius and in other Dependent Territories.

Dr. David Kerr: While conveying our very deep concern to the island over these events, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can give us an assurance that the Government will look sympathetically at any request for aid in dealing with the consequences of the violence? Can he

say what steps the Mauritius Government are taking to make sure that this outbreak of violence, which may not have stemmed from political issues, is not allowed to escalate into a manifestation of political disturbance?

Mr. Thomson: The first thing to do in preventing these disturbances from escalating is to take the kind of steps to maintain law and order which we have taken. Her Majesty's Government give generous assistance to the Government of Mauritius. I have already said that we will look at the question of refugees.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that since die war there have been between 40 and 50 occasions when British troops have been called upon to restore order or to come to the aid of a civil power? Is it not becoming an alarming fact that we shall no longer be able to do our duty and carry out our commitments east of Suez if we withdraw our troops from that part of the world?

Mr. Thomson: I cannot accept that we will not be able to do our duty to our remaining Dependencies after we have withdrawn from Singapore. If, in the case of Mauritius, which will be an independent Commonwealth country in a very few weeks' time, it were decided to send forces at any time, then we would do so, as I have said, from our European capability.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Can my right hon. Friend say anything about the position of Royal Navy personnel and their families who are stationed in Mauritius?

Mr. Thomson: So far as my present information goes, no harm has come to any people from Britain or, indeed, to any property owned by people from Britain.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the Government avoid taking it for granted that the Australians will grant us facilities to protect Mauritius or anywhere else, observing how shabbily the British Government have treated Australian interests in recent months?

Mr. Thomson: I was not taking anything for granted in giving the House the assurances which I have just given.

Mr. Hastings: The right hon. Gentleman spoke a moment ago about coping with future situations in Mauritius from the European capability. How will that be done? What transit airfields in Africa will be used, for instance?

Mr. Thomson: We are satisfied that there will be a number of route options available to us. I would not wish to go into details at this point, but I would mention Ascension Island

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY, 5th FEBRUARY

Mr. Speaker: Before we take the Ballot for Notices of Motions for Monday, 5th February, perhaps I should remind the House that this is the first such Ballot to be taken under the new Sessional Order to which the House agreed on 12th December last.
Under the terms of that Order, the successful Members whose names are called out are not required to rise and give oral notice of the subject which they intend to raise—indeed, they need not even be present—nor are they expected to give any written indication to the Table today.
All that they need do is to hand in notice of the subjects which they wish to raise to the Table or Table Office on a sitting day not less than nine days before the Private Members' Motion day in question—that is, in this instance, at any time up to the rising of the House on Friday.

The following hon. Members were chosen in the Ballot:
Mr. Tony Gardner.
Mr. Gordon Oakes.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Mr. Biggs-Davison rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not hear the new method of procedure.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are we not permitted to resort to the old procedure if we so desire, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; he is quite right. We have said that hon. Members need not give oral notice, but that does not mean that they are not allowed to do so if they wish.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to give notice that on Monday, 5th February, I shall call attention to restrictions on the sale of arms, and move a Resolution.

HEARING AIDS

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Hearing Aids Council to register persons engaged in the manufacture or supply of hearing aids, to advise on the training of persons engaged in such business, and to regulate trade practices; and for purposes connected therewith.
This is the third time that I have sought leave to introduce this Bill, and I am hopeful that perhaps the third time will be lucky. My purpose is still to protect the hard-of-hearing from the hard-selling. I want to put service, education and information in the place of gimmicky sales promotion. Therefore, what I seek to do in the Bill is to help those suffering from a hearing disability and to protect them in the same way that we safeguard those whose eyesight is not so good and who need spectacles. No longer do people go to Woolworth's for spectacles; they have to be prescribed by a qualified person. A council for ears, just as we have the General Optical Council for eyes, can help in fulfilling this purpose.
When I tried to persuade the House to accept the Bill on Second Reading last year, I was up against the proposition that it did not fall easily into any category. Fifty-five per cent, of it concerned consumer protection and 45 per cent, concerned health. I have discovered that nothing annoys legislators more than a Bill which will not fit neatly into one department. I pay tribute to the Ministers and officials of the Board of Trade who since then have given their time and advice freely, and especially to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), and the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody). I am not quite sure who is the "darling".
Deaf people are vulnerable, and they are often elderly. They desperately want a miracle—something which will give back the hearing which they have lost and which will enable them to mix with their friends and relations without feeling embarrassment or foolish. The fact that friends and relations are impatient of deafness and that it is still too often the subject of a music hall joke adds to the

false pride that is ashamed to show it. They therefore desperately seek an invisible aid.
I hope that one of the by-products of the Bill would be social acceptance of this disability, just as we accept those unfortunate enough to have lost the use of either eyes or limbs, and that we shall get to the stage when there is no more reluctance to wear a hearing aid than there is to wear a pair of spectacles.
The council which I propose would do two things: first, regulate trade practices; and, secondly, seek to establish professional standards so that there are qualified dispensers of the aids. It would also keep a register of those so qualified.
A prosthetic device is not something like a vacuum cleaner, and it should be taken out of that kind of selling. It is something which a disabled person needs to have to bring him back into communication with the world and with which he needs to be well and truly serviced. I would commend to the House an article in a recent edition of Which? which shows that the best buy is still the National Health Service Medresco. For the majority of people, it is still a very good aid, although there are some whom it does not suit.
The article in Which? shows that the margin between the cost of production, which is £12 or £14, and a selling price which can be as much as £75 is very large. The large margin is sheer profit to the unethical salesman who does not make up the difference with the education, service and nursing of the person which are needed if he is to learn to use the aid properly. The way in which the mould is made and the person is taught to use his aid are of vital importance, and the user needs to be protected against those who do not give solid service. In my experience, it takes at least three months to learn to use an aid properly. That period of three months needs safeguarding.
The industry has sought always to establish higher standards, but so far it has not had the statutory teeth, and I am grateful that it is now seeking power, through my Bill, because the ethical firms have been at the mercy of the fly-by-night salesman.
I have almost 100 per cent, support for my Bill from leaders of the industry


like Montagu of Multitone, Sterling of Ardente, and Driver of the Society of Hearing Aid Audiologists. The one snag into which I have run is that of finance. In my innocence, I thought that it would be easy to get £5,000 a year out of the Treasury, in view of the fact that we spend £1 million a year on Medresco. However, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, if leave is given me to bring in this Bill, the industry will meet the whole cost, and no charge will fall cm anyone else.
The hard of hearing want clarity, rather than volume. For this Bill, I want a volume of support from the House, a token of which is shown by the Bill's sponsors, who include a former Conservative Minister of Health and the spokesman for the Liberal Party on health matters. From us all I want compassion and understanding, with some protection for the disabled whose disability lies in their ears. The Bill can be a major factor to achieve these aims.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Laurence Pavitt, Mr. Turton, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. W. T. Williams, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Dr. John Dunwoody, and Mr. Tony Gardner.

HEARING AIDS

Bill to provide for the establishment of a Hearing Aids Council to register persons engaged in the manufacture or supply of hearing aids, to advise on the training of persons engaged in such business, and to regulate trade practices; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 23rd February and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Orders of the Day — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.54 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The principal object of the Bill is to improve the system whereby persons become justices of the peace in England and Wales. That system is unique in the whole world. Over 90 per cent, of the criminal cases in England and Wales are tried in magistrates' courts. All but 1 per cent, of them, which are dealt with by stipendiary magistrates, are tried by lay justices up and down the country. Their competence and suitability and the confidence which they inspire are of great importance to the ordinary citizen, for it is in the magistrates' courts more than any other court that he is most likely to come up against the administration of justice in action.
The method of appointment of justices has been the subject of a lot of controversy during much of our history, particularly during the last century and a half. In this century, it has been considered by two Royal Commissions, one reporting in 1911 and the other in 1948. The principal recommendation of the 1911 Royal Commission, which was duly implemented, was that the Lord Chancellor—and, in the Duchy of Lancaster, the Chancellor of the Duchy—who had long been responsible for the appointment of justices, should continue to exercise this function, but that he should be assisted by advisory committees which should be set up throughout the country for this purpose.
The outstanding recommendations of the 1948 Royal Commission were the introduction of training schemes, the imposition of a compulsory retiring age at 75, and the payment of certain allowances to justices. Most of the 1948 recommendations were implemented either by administrative action or by the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. That was the last occasion on which any general review of the magistracy was undertaken.
Suggestions have been made in the House and elsewhere that a further


fundamental review of the procedure, administration and jurisdiction of magistrates' courts should now be initiated. But, as the House is aware, an inquiry has been taking place since the end of 1966 into the whole structure of the higher criminal courts by the Royal Commission on Assizes and Quarter Sessions. Its report is likely to have a profound bearing on the arrangements for magistrates' courts as well. It would, therefore, be wiser to wait until the recommendations of the Royal Commission are known before any further inquiry is carried out into magistrates' courts, and it may be some time before that can be done.
In the meantime, in the light of the experience gained since the last Royal Commission on justices reported 20 years ago or thereabouts, the need has become apparent for some changes in the magisterial system which can be carried out without any likelihood that they will have to be altered again in the foreseeable future. The Bill embodies those changes.
Most of its provisions are based on the principle that the magistrates' courts should generally be compised of lay justices who are men and women of integrity and intelligence drawn, so far as practicable, from all sections of the community, holding all shades of opinion, and who have been specially selected for the important work which they have to perform as justices of the peace.
Clause 1 of the Bill, which deals principally with the appointment of justices, provides in subsection (1) that no person shall become a justice of the peace unless either he is appointed by name to a commission of the peace or he holds one of the offices specified in the First Schedule. This means that, in future, with a few exceptions, the only way in which a person can become a justice of the peace will be by being appointed by name by the Lord Chancellor or, in the Duchy of Lancaster, by the Chancellor of the Duchy.
The effect of this provision will also be that all ex officio justices—that is to say, all persons who are at present justices by virtue of holding some other office—will cease to be justices, with the exception of those mentioned in the First

Schedule who need to be magistrates to carry out their functions. I refer to people like the chairmen of quarter sessions and recorders. At the moment, there are about 2,000 persons who are justices because they hold some other office. That number compares with about 16,000 justices on the active list who have been appointed by name to a commission of the peace.
If I may say so, the ex officio justices are a rich and somewhat strange variety. They include, among others, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Lord Privy Seal, Privy Councillors, High Court judges, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council, the chairmen of county councils and of urban and rural district councils, the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London, the mayors of boroughs, and the Vice-Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge. For some reason, there are three ex officio magistrates for Oxford but only one, by some unaccountable piece of inequality, for Cambridge. Curiously enough, among the ex officio justices are the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, so I suppose I ought to declare a self-denying interest in the fate of the Bill.
The Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace of 1948 recommended that chairmen of county and urban district and rural district councils should cease to be justices ex officio. The Commission pointed out that the qualities that enable a chairman of a local authority to perform his duties as chairman with success are not of necessity those requisite for the office of justice of the peace, and, moreover, in many areas the question who is to be the chairman is decided more by rotation than by merit.
It went on to say that if a chairman of a local authority is suitable for appointment as a justice, the ordinary procedure should suffice to ensure his consideration for that office. The Commission, however, did not recommend that mayors of boroughs or Privy Councillors and others, to whom it was good enough to refer as "high officers", should cease to be justices ex officio.
Most of those who gave evidence to the Royal Commission thought that at least


some of the justices ex officio should be abolished, although there was not agreement on this point. But, in spite of the weight of opinion against the retention of at least local authority justices ex officio, the recommendation of the Royal Commission on this point was the only recommendation dealing with individual justices which was not implemented.
The subject was discussed during the passage of the Justices of the Peace Bill through Parliament in 1949, but no provisions for the abolition of these justices were included in the Bill for reasons which were not, if I may say so, altogether clear, but partly it seems because it was thought that the position of local government justices ex officio could better be dealt with in the legislation on the future structure of local government which was about to be considered. This subject, however, was not pursued, and the position remains the same today as it was then.
The Government take the view that the principle which should be applied to the appointment of justices is that only those who are specially selected for the purpose and who are able to give sufficient time to the work should be appointed. It therefore follows that there should be no justices ex-officio whatever, save only those who hold judicial offices in the courts in which magistrates are directly concerned, such as, as I have said, chairmen of quarter sessions and recorders.
Added to this there is now a system, as the House knows, of compulsory training for all justices of the peace on first appointment. This training cannot in general be applied effectively to the ex officio justices because of the method of appointment of these persons and the short period during which most of them hold office.
Advantage has also been taken in the Bill to make some tidying up proposals. Before I refer to those, I would like to mention the proposal in Clause 1(1) of the Bill to abolish the office of Keeper of the Rolls. Since the Bill was published, strong representations have been made for the retention of the ancient office of Custos Rotulorum on the ground that they play a useful part in the work of preserving some of the county records and archives in their respective areas. In view

of this, it is likely that the Government will move an Amendment to delete the provision for the abolition of this office, but this will not affect the provision that the Keeper will cease to be a justice ex officio under the Bill.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill removes the requirement that a person who has once taken the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath as a justice shall take these oaths again if he is subsequently appointed a justice for any other area. Justices do move their residences from time to time and, under an arrangement which was introduced by the Lord Chancellor recently, a justice who has served for at least five years and then moves to another area is automatically placed on the commission for that area, though he is precluded from sitting in court until a vacancy occurs on his local bench and the advisory committee decide to recommend his appointment to the active list.
It is obviously inconvenient and unnecessary for justices who are transferred in this way to be obliged to take the oaths once again, as they are under the existing law. There are other circumstances, with which I need not trouble the House, in which a justice may at present be required to take the oaths more than once.
In addition to removing the necessity for what I might, without disrespect, call this superfluous oath-taking, the subsection also repeals those parts of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, which provide that the recorder of a borough and a borough justice shall not be capable of acting as such until they have made a declaration before the mayor or two other members of the council. The declaration, which is, of course, in addition to the judicial oaths, is to the effect that the recorder or justice will impartially execute his office according to the best of his judgment and ability. I suppose that if he fails to execute his office in that way he will be got rid of anyway; but, at any rate, it seems there is no object in retaining that provision.
Clause 1(3) re-enacts certain old provisions whereby the position of a justice is not affected by any change in his name or his promotion to a dignity, and proceedings before justices are not affected by the issue of a new commission of the peace.
Clause 1(4) enables mayors of boroughs and chairmen of county and district councils to exercise the same functions as justices of the peace on the Supplemental List, notwithstanding that they will cease to be justices ex officio in consequence of the Bill. Justices on the Supplemental List cannot, as the House knows, sit in court, but they are permitted to perform the useful function of document-witnessing and the other functions which are set out in Clause 1(4) of the Bill.
There has been some doubt whether all criminal courts have power to bind persons over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. Clause 1(5) is, therefor, declaratory of the power of all courts of record having criminal jurisdiction to bind over. The opportunity has also been taken in this subsection to abolish any right or power at common law of the Sovereign in person, or the Privy Council, members of the Privy Council or the Secretary of State, to commit to prison or to issue warrants of arrest or search warrants.
We come now to Clause 1(6) of the Bill, which may well prove to be the most and perhaps the only controversial part of it. It provides for the issue of the commission of the peace to the City of London. At present, the City of London has no commission of the peace and it is the only area in the country which is not covered by a commission. The magistrates' courts for the City are composed of the aldermen who are justices ex officio by virtue of charters and have long performed valuable services as such.
Under the Bill the appointment of justices for the City of London will be assimilated to that pertaining throughout the rest of England and Wales and according to the same principle. Aldermen will cease to be justices ex officio and the magistrates' courts in the City will be composed in future solely of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor by name to a commission which will be issued for the City and they will no longer be able to sit singly, as they do now, to try all cases. The City commission will be similar to that issued to each of the five commission areas established for Greater London under Section 2 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964.
In Clause 1(7) the Government are taking the opportunity of dealing with the position of the five stipendiary magistrates who are appointed under local Acts rather than under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. A stipendiary magistrate is normally appointed on the petition of the local authority for a single petty sessions area, usually a large borough with its own commission of the peace, like Manchester or Birmingham, but there are five stipendiary magistrates—in South Staffordshire, the Staffordshire Potteries, Salford, Merthyr Tydfil, and Pontypridd—who are appointed under local Acts of Parliament which were enacted mainly in the 19th century. Some of their provisions are somewhat archaic. These stipendiaries are now brought within the normal arrangements of the 1949 Act.
Clause 2 reduces the retiring age for magistrates. A compulsory retiring age for lay justices was first introduced by the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, which required all justices except those who held, or had held, high judicial office to transfer to the Supplemental List on reaching the age of 75. Although some persons are no doubt well fitted to continue to serve efficiently as justices even after they have reached 75, experience suggests that the powers of the majority of lay justices at any rate tend to become impeded when they have passed 70. The Bill therefore reduces the age at which lay justices must transfer to the Supplemental List from 75 to 70.
This provision does not apply to justices who are chairmen or deputy chairmen of quarter sessions, or to recorders, who hold or have held high judicial office, but the subsection does provide that all these persons must be placed on the Supplemental List when they reach 75, and in the case of chairmen and deputy chairmen and recorders they must transfer before attaining that age if they cease to hold office after they have reached 70.
Subsection (2) applies a similar retiring age to stipendiary magistrates who are appointed after the passing of the Bill. Both Metropolitan stipendiaries and stipendiaries outside London will be required to vacate office at the end of the completed year of service in the course of which they attain the age of 70. At


present, stipendiary magistrates must retire at the end of the completed year of service in the course of which they attain the age of 72, subject to the proviso that the Lord Chancellor may authorise a magistrate to continue in office up to the age of 75 if he considers this desirable in the public interest.
If the new retiring age of 70 were to be applied immediately to all lay justices there might be a shortage of experienced magistrates in some areas, and therefore, as the House will see, Clause 2(3) provides for the reduction in the age limit to be applied gradually, one year at a time, so that it will not finally drop to 70 until 1973.
Clause 3 amends Section 13 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949 which enables the Lord Chancellor to make rules by Statutory Instrument governing the term of office and the procedure at an election of the chairman and deputy chairman of the justices in a petty sessional area. At present, a justice may vote at the election of a chairman and deputy chairman of his bench even though he has only just been appointed to the commission and has not had any opportunity to observe the suitability of his brother justices for these offices. The Clause will enable the rules to provide that no justice may vote at an election until he has served as a justice in the area for sufficiently long to enable him to understand what is involved and to know the merits of the justices for whom he will be able to vote.
Clause 4 deals with allowances for justices of the peace. I think that it was Mark Twain who said that people will do almost anything provided that they are unpaid, but apparently there are limits. There is evidence that suitable candidates are deterred from accepting an appointment to the bench because they fear that they will incur out-of-pocket expenses which they cannot afford, and that, consequently, benches sit with an unusually large proportion of persons in the higher income groups.
This is a question which the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace in 1948 was asked to consider. Before that time justices were not entitled to allowances of any kind. The Royal Commission recommended that justices should be paid their travelling expenses, and a

lodging allowance if they were away from home overnight, but came out against any payment for subsistence or for loss of remunerative time, because it felt that payments of this nature might lessen public confidence in an unpaid magistracy. It also thought that there would be very few cases in which such payments would secure the services of people with strong claims to appointment.
The Government consider that the situation has changed significantly over the past 20 years, and during that time there has been continuing pressure on successive Governments, particularly from the Trades Union Congress, to widen the field from which justices are selected so that the bench is more truly representative of all social classes in the community. There is also abundant evidence from the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees, who nominate candidates for the bench, that many suitable people from the wage-earning section of the population cannot at present afford to serve as justices.
We therefore propose, in subsection (2), the introduction of a financial loss allowance for justices of the peace. This will be on the lines of the allowance which was introduced by the Local Government Act, 1948, for elected members of local authorities. The current rates are up to £1 12s. 6d. for a period of not more than four hours, and up to £3 5s. for more than four hours. I want to emphasise that these are not flat-rate allowances which will be paid automatically for attendance on the bench. They must be claimed, and, within the maxima that I have mentioned, they will be payable only where a justice has suffered some actual loss of income or been put to extra expense, for example, where a small shopkeeper has had to pay someone to look after his shop while he has been sitting on the bench. I hope that this will dispel any suggestion of the kind which the Royal Commission envisaged, that people might be attracted to the bench because they think that they might earn more there than by their private exertions.
In our view this modest Measure does not conflict with the concept of an unpaid magistracy. The principle is well accepted for local authority members, and no one thinks of them as being paid


for their service to the community. And, more recently, jurors have become entitled to a similar allowance. Only the lay magistrate in this field of service is expected to bear any financial loss himself, so the office of justice of the peace will continue to be an office of honour, and not an office of profit.
We have brought in the reference to loss of National Insurance evidence to cover the rare situation where an unemployed justice might be denied unemployment benefit because he was required to sit in court on several successive days, and was held for this reason not to be available to take up employment.
In relation to this part of the Bill, I should perhaps remind the House that, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced in November last, civil servants who are justices are allowed special leave with pay to carry out their judicial duties. Similar facilities are also granted to civil servants who are elected members of local authorities, and this allowance has been increased from 12 to 18 days a year. The House might like to know that nationalised industries, private industry and local government organisations have agreed, at the Lord Chancellor's request, to grant similar facilities to those of their employees who are appointed magistrates.
Subsection (3) secures an improvement in the conditions governing payment of subsistence allowances to justices. The allowances were introduced in 1964, but they are not payable if the justice lives within three miles of the court. Subsection (3) removes this restriction. The House will be familiar with the case for this measure, which has been strenuously put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), whom I am happy to see in his place, who has carried out untiring efforts to achieve this reform by means of a Private Member's Bill.
This is another situation which bears harder on the less well off justices. In most places it is not easy for a justice to undertake a round trip of six miles from the court to his home in the limited time allowed for a luncheon adjournment. If he cannot afford to lunch with his colleagues, he might have no alternative but to lunch in a cheap local hostelry, where

he might come into contact with defendants or witnesses. Apart from any embarrassment which this might cause, the House will take the view, I think that it is in the interests of justices that the members of the bench should be able to lunch together and discuss matters touching on their work in that refreshing interval. These two financial Measures will not, however, be introduced until economic circumstances permit——

Sir Douglas Glover: I cannot understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last remark. Does he mean that the justices will have a private room in which to lunch? Whether they go into a cheap hostelry or an expensive one, they are just as likely to meet someone who has appeared before them when they were on the bench.

The Attorney-General: But they will meet the more expensive crooks in the more expensive restaurants. I think that the intention is that they should meet together in a restaurant or hotel where, in the course of time, some arrangements of privacy can be laid on. I think that most restaurant owners near magistrates' courts are willing to undertake that sort of arrangement. [Laughter.] I hope that that is so. There is some derisive laughter from the benches below the Gangway opposite, but I certainly hope that that facility will be provided. I also hope that they will remember the lawyers and the Press in the course of that consideration.
As I said, these two financial measures will be introduced only when economic circumstances permit. Subsection (4) removes a disability in Section 8(4) of the 1949 Act which, as at present drafted, precludes any arrangements being made for the payment of expenses to a paid chairman or deputy-chairman of quarter sessions, except at the time that his salary is determined. The subsection continues to disqualify them, like stipendiary magistrates and recorders, from any entitlement to financial loss allowance.
Subsection (5) extends the benefits of the Clause to members of probation and after-care committees and members of case committees, most of whom are justices. Under the present legislation, the allowances for members of these committees are the same as for justices, but it is appropriate that they should continue to be so.
Clause 5 enables rules to be made for two purposes. Under subsection (1), rules can be made delegating to justices' clerks functions at present performed by justices and, under subsection (2), rules can be made prescribing the qualifications required by a person other than a justices' clerk who may have to perform the clerk's functions. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor considers that subjection (1) should help towards the efficient dispatch of court business by relieving justices of various functions of a routine or quasi-administrative nature which could be performed entirely satisfactorily by their clerk without the need to trouble a justice.
The House will see, however, that limits are placed on this rule-making power. First, it relates only to functions preliminary or incidental to the proceedings before a magistrates court and thus clearly rules out delegation to the clerk of the court of the main functions of justices, such as the trial of an offence, the passing of sentence or the making of an order in a civil matter.
Second, the power is restricted to functions which can at present be per formed by a single justice and thus excludes anything which has to be done by a court of two or more justices. Third, the issue or endorsement of war rants of arrest and other arrants—such as warrants committing to prison for non-payment of a fine—is excluded. Apart from these limitations, it is intended to provide in the rules that the delegation of functions to the clerk shall be subject to any directions given by the court, so that there will be no question of a clerk acting contrary to the policy or intentions of his own bench——

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Before he leaves that point, would my right hon. and learned Friend say something about the nomination of justices of the peace? Would he agree that the present practice, whereby political parties participate in the nomination, is possibly undesirable, and that perhaps it would be better to substitute the trade unions on the one hand and the chambers of trade on the other for the policital parties?

The Attorney-General: This is not a convenient moment in my speech to deal with that point, but I will, nevertheless, deal with it. The present arrangement,

whereby the Lord Chancellor is advised by local advisory committees is, I think, now working reasonably satisfactorily. The principal test should be the capacity and integrity of the individual, but the Lord Chancellor is anxious that the bench should reflect a cross-section socially of the community, as far as that is practicable, and a cross-section of opinion. I do not think it desirable to have too hard and fast a political division on the bench. Many justices are wholly nonparty in their political allegiances.
There has been a greater awareness, however, in recent years—without making a party point of this—of the need for benches to reflect opinion fairly and generally. The practice which existed in some county commissions in particular in the past of the bench being composed almost exclusively of the members of a single political party has been changing rapidly since the war. I do not think that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has in mind any fundamental change in the present arrangements, which seem to be providing general satisfaction.
I was dealing with the provisions of Clause 5. The House must be assured, in regard to these interesting proposals, that the precise functions which are to be delegated to clerks under the power given in the Bill will be a matter for discussion between the Home Office, the magistrates and the clerks before any draft rules are submitted to the rule committee which, in accordance with Section 15 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, has to be consulted before such rules are made. As the House knows, the committee consists of the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, the Chief Magistrate of Bow Street and such other persons as the Lord Chancellor may appoint.
It will, for example, be for consideration whether justices' clerks should be enabled under this power to issue summonses or to arrange adjournments in certain types of case, but, as I have said, these matters will require careful consideration before the rules are made.
Subsection (2) enables rules to be made prescribing the qualifications required by a person other than a justices' clerk who may have to perform the clerk's functions. Under Section 20 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, a person may not be


appointed a justices' clerk unless, first, he is a solicitor or barrister of five years' standing, second, he is a solicitor or a barrister who has served in a magistrates court for not less than five years in a capacity specified in that Section, or, third, he has served in such a capacity for not less than 10 years before 1960 and, in the opinion of the magistrates' courts committee and of the Secretary of State, there are special circumstances making the appointment a proper one.
Whereas, for example, in the big cities a justices' clerk is responsible for several courts sitting at the same time, some of those courts must be taken by a person other than the justices' clerk, who may not possess any of the qualifications to which I have just referred. Indeed, under the law as it stands at present, he need not have any qualifications at all.
It seemed to us that this was unsatisfactory, and that a person who was to perform the more important duties of the clerk, such as advising the justices on a point of law or, in future, carrying out any of the functions of a justice that may be delegated to the clerk under the power contained in sub-section (1), ought to possess recognised qualifications.
Precisely what those qualifications should be, the extent to which they should be based on the passing of examinations or service in a magistrates' court and what functions should be restricted to qualified persons will all be matters for discussions with those concerned, including the association representing the clerks and their assistants, before any draft rules are submitted to the Rule Committee.
Clause 6 deals with the provisions of the Bill applying to Scotland. If hon. Members wish to ask questions on these provisions, they will be answered by one of my hon. Friends later in the debate. The effect of these provisions is to provide for entitlement to a financial loss allowance, abolition of the three-mile limit and a reduction in the retiring age of justices of the peace from 75 to 70, on exactly the same footing as England and Wales.
The principal provision of the Bill which is not applied to Scotland—for reasons connected with the special arrangements which prevail north of the Border—is that concerning ex officio justices. As hon. Members from Scotland

will be aware, justices of the peace do not sit for judicial business in all parts of Scotland. The main burden of summary trial and criminal work in the counties is carried by the sheriff courts. In the burghs, much of the summary jurisdiction is exercised by the bailies, who are magistrates by virtue of their local government offices.
It would apparently not be practicable to alter the position of the bailies by the Bill and it would be difficult, in the circumstances, to deprive other lay magistrates of their judicial functions at the present time. Further, if lay magistrates are to remain unaffected, it is thought that it would be inappropriate to do anything in Scotland to alter the position of Privy Councillors, judges, law officers and others. Clause 6 therefore omits any reference to justices ex officio.
I apologise for having taken so much time in dealing with a number of matters which are largely of technical importance, but I hope that the House will agree that this is a worthwhile Bill and one that is likely to improve the administration of justice in the magistrates' courts. As I have said, these courts play a far greater part in the lives of the ordinary citizens than any other courts in the land. Well over 1 million criminal cases are tried by the magistrates every year, in addition to the great volume of civil matters, especially domestic proceedings, with which they deal. It is essential, therefore, that we should do all we can to enable these courts to maintain high standards and to ensure that the magistrates, wherever they may sit, have the confidence of the people among whom they work and to whom they administer justice.

4.34 p.m.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: In his full explanation of the Bill, the Attorney-General was right to stress the important part that is played in the administration of criminal justice by the unpaid magistracy. It is right that we should reflect that well over 1 million cases a year —indeed, I believe that the number is nearly 1½ million—are dealt with by the magistrates. This illustrates the dependence which we have upon them. If one translates that into court hours and into terms of a paid magistracy or the time of jurors, one sees that, in terms of


money saved, we have a great dependence on magistrates.
The extent of the burden borne by these unpaid people who give their service in the magistracy is great. They give excellent service and it is rare, out of the 16,000 or so magistrates, that one comes upon a failure. I, too, wish to pay tribute to the devotion and service which the magistracy gives to the administration of criminal law in this country.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Both my right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman have referred to the inordinate number of people who appear before magistrates' courts. I trust that they have considered the fact that people guilty of motoring offences cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be included in the criminal classes.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Motoring offences can be very serious indeed. In any case, the burden on magistrates includes indictable offences, too. About 88 per cent. of indictable offences, which are serious criminal cases, are dealt with by them.
We are speaking of a system which we have had in this country for very many years. This system necessarily reduces the amount of jury trial. I recall a conversation I had in the United States Department of Justice, when a comment was made about it being comparatively rare in Britain for there to be a trial by jury in a criminal case—this because of the vast number of cases dealt with by the unprofessional magistracy. I believe that the system works well, although I would be the last to decry the importance of the jury, both in civil cases and in criminal trials. It is important always to associate the layman with the administration of justice, and the more that can be done the better it will be for the administration of justice.
Trial by justices is, of course, trial by laymen. However, they need training, they need to know about punishment and they need to know about procedure. About 20 years ago, when I began to practise at the Bar, I recollect that sometimes an unfortunate impression would be given when the bench of magistrates would come into court, have a word with the clerk and the police officer, look at

the advocates appearing on behalf of the defendants—and wonder what those strange animals were doing there—and then proceed to hear the case. However, that has all disappeared and it is vitally important that persons presiding at any court should recollect the great adage of justice being seen to be done. They must also realise that manner and procedure in court are some of the most important things in the administration of criminal justice.
To recruit 16,000 magistrates is a difficult task. I suggest to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) that those who have taken upon themselves the duty of administering justice—I do not mind to which political party they belong—do not allow political considerations to enter into the matter. I know what the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he intervened. I heard what the Attorney-General said in reply. In the same way, when we get off political matters, hon. Members address themselves to the task in hand. I am certain that when persons come to consider the judgment of other persons, they do that wholly divorced from any form of association that they may have or any political view that they may hold.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in saying that he knew what I had in mind in my intervention. I was not in any way referring to political considerations of that sort. I was referring to the recruitment of magistrates and I suggested that, rather than political organisations being responsible, other parties were best suited to perform the task of recruitment.

Sir P. Rawlinson: I do not think that that has become a problem. I support, and will support, certain provisions of the Bill because we need to recruit to the bench men of ability and integrity whatever experience of life they may have. Incidentally, the Attorney-General may appreciate that at present that of the four treasurers of the Inns of Court which govern the discipline of the Bar three are former Socialist Ministers.
One is a former Home Secretary, one the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), who was Solicitor-General, and one a highly-respected and admired judge who formerly was a Labour Solicitor-General. I hope and believe that it will always be


maintained that the judiciary, unpaid or professional, has nothing whatever to do with a person's politics.
The problem is finding people available to serve. Obviously, the most available to do the very arduous tasks involved in being a justice of the peace are usually elderly retired men or married women whose family responsibilities have lessened. I welcome the provisions of the Bill, for they will, I hope, alleviate the difficulties and give recompense for financial loss in recruiting from a wider section of the community. I believe that £360,000 has been mentioned as the amount needed to recompense for financial loss, plus allowances and pensions. I think that in this respect it will be well worth while.
We shall still not get to serve on the bench the young salaried executive whose work is such that he cannot give time to serving on the bench. We get occasionally, but not very often, the young woman with a family, but such people find it extremely difficult to serve. These always will be difficulties we shall have to face, but when we can get people of these age groups and experience they are useful and important to recruit for service on the bench.

Mr. David Weitzman: Is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said a good reason for not limiting the age to 70?

Sir P. Rawlinson: I shall consider whether 70 as the maximum age is a sensible provision. This is something we have to bear in mind. Many hon. and right hon. Members who, so far as we can judge, give competent service, are over 70. As in other professions, there are men over 70. If they are competent enough to serve it should be considered whether we should permit them to do so. That is something we shall have to consider in Committee to find whether this is an advisable provision.
Generally, we want to see that we get good service at minimum cost from those who will bear the brunt of the work in administering criminal justice. A vast expenditure would be involved if we had to substitute a professional judge for every unpaid magistrate. I do not look upon the abolition of ex officio justices as

a matter of principle. In the circumstances, I prefer it as a matter of good sense. In the ordinary borough when a councillor is elected mayor he becomes the first citizen and magistrate and a justice of the peace.
I do not think that that is good sense. He has had no training but comes straight to the bench as a magistrate without any experience. He remains there for a very limited period. Looking at this question as a matter of good sense and of getting good practical results, I think that there is certainly a case for the abolition and that it is sensible to abolish ex officio justices.
I ask the House to look at the merits of the matter and to look for the reasons for this proposal. Here, the Bill goes beyond looking merely at the merits and seeing whether this is good sense. The Government have decided, for reasons which do not seem to be good sense, to abolish and to extend this principle to the City, where there is a wholly different practice. This is the very opposite of pragmatic purposiveness.
There is a very different system in the City. Provided that the situation is satisfactory, and that justice is being competently administered, we ought not to overlook matters of finance. We ought not to overlook the matter of waste of man hours and court hours. This is not the time to be profligate with either. If the standard is good and administration of justice in the City is approved by the highest courts, why alter it, especially if this will mean more money and more people being needed? If their standards are high, what is the point of substituting two or three people where one would be competent? This is sacrificing sense for mere uniformity. It is an academic and extravagant attitude to adopt at present.
I suggest that it is bred from irritation that an old system has worked well for years and can still work well. This is the worst example of trying to be modern for modernity's sake and I do not think it suitable. In the City, when a man is elected to the Court of Aldermen, because the nature of his duties includes judicial duties, he has to be approved by other aldermen and he is obliged to study authorities and textbooks. He is obliged to acquire some academic knowledge, to


visit prisons in the London area, a detention centre and a borstal institution, to see things for himself.
He is obliged to attend a minimum of six times at a court sitting—which is more than magistrates anywhere else are obliged to do—and he has to attend a magistrates' court outside the City. He is obliged to attend a course given by the chief clerk on the methods and problems of punishment, probation and treatment, and he is recommended to join the Magistrates' Association. This is based on the Lord Chancellor's syllabus, but it goes beyond that.
This may be concentrated into a period which gives a man benefit, if he is to be an unprofessional, unpaid magistrate, far superior to that anywhere else in the country. Twice yearly he attends sentencing exercises and other meetings. He is in close contact with the recorder and other judges in the Central Criminal Court. There is no doubt that we get the best trained and qualified unprofessional magistracy in the City of London. My personal experience as an advocate appearing before that tribunal and others is that the City is on every occasion a well-administered court with proper procedure and proper attitudes.
By the time the Lord Mayor presides, he has been doing this work for eight or 10 years. He is not the "Mayor of Little Puddletown", but the Lord Mayor of London, and after sitting on the bench for that time is a trained and experienced magistrate.
Does the system work? The character of the City is entirely different from that anywhere else. It is a place where people work, but do not live. There is very little in the way of matrimonial work and very little juvenile crime because of the particular characteristics of the City. Obviously, in that jurisdiction there must be included cases of financial magnitude and complexity in which it is very important to have persons with some knowledge of these matters presiding over the court. A Customs case in 1963 occupied 26 days. There are many occasions when cases involving such matters are heard.
How have they been discharging their duties? Who are the best judges? The Royal Commission of 1948, to which the

right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, talked of the
high standard of administration of criminal justice
and did not then—at a time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member of the House, though I was not—
recommend any change for the adult court.
In 1948, the then Lord Chief Justice said that, although the High Court saw many cases from magistrates' courts, it was
rare indeed to find one brought from a decision of an alderman of the City. I do not recall a single instance, which is a striking tribute to the wisdom and care with which those courts perform their duties.
Fifteen months ago the present Lord Chief Justice said that the case for altering the system in the City had not been made out, that the judges had complete confidence in the aldermen as justices of the peace, and he hoped that second thoughts would prevail.
These are important testimonials of which we in the House, with our limited direct knowledge of these matters, should at least take account. If the present system is wholly satisfactory—as it is, according to the judges—what is the point of making this change? It cannot be on the grounds of sense. It must be for some other reason, a reason which cannot commend itself to the House when considering a Bill dealing with the administration of justice. The test should be efficiency. If the City passes that test, it should be left as it is. In 1966–67 the Lord Mayor sat 76 times and the aldermen 30 times. They dealt with 19,000 cases in 1967, compared with about 5,000 in 1950. Only six of the 19,000 cases were reversed on appeal. This is a remarkable record.
Applying the test of efficiency and of good administration of justice, the right Hon. and learned Gentleman should leave the matter where it is. The impression that there is some other reason, either prejudice or ill-judgment, which is affecting this matter. The Attorney-General said that it was an anomaly. What about the anomalous position of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, I understand, has some say in the appointment of magistrates? The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), who has held various offices, would not pretend to know much about the appointment of


justices. If that anomaly is left, an anomaly which on the face of it is much more remarkable, why not leave the situation in the City unchanged?
We on this side will always support sensible and practical changes, changes designed to bring the law up to date and to make it better in its administration, but we shall impose the test of efficiency and of general improvement. We supported the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he wanted a Bill quickly to increase the number of justices. I wish that it was law now, because, in view of the reports I receive as to delays, I should like there to be more judges immediately so that delays, particularly in the provinces, could be reduced.
I appreciate that in this the Attorney-General is the agent for the Lord Chancellor. There was a time when it was suggested that there should be a Vice-Chancellor in charge of answering on matters of law in the House of Commons. That did not prevail. The right rests fairly and squarely upon the Attorney-General and his colleagues. I can only ask him, as a practical, sensible, man, who knows about the administration of justice, to reconsider this matter. It is an appropriate matter to be dealt with at a later stage.
We approve of much of the Bill, but I hope that the Government will be practical, apply here the criterion of efficiency, and think again. As the Bill contains certain reasonable proposals, of which I have spoken, I shall not advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against it. However, I serve warning that, unless the Government think again and see sense at a later stage, we shall certainly deal with this matter then.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Harry Howarth: I suppose that I should declare an interest, in that I still serve as a lay magistrate in one of the petty sessional divisions of Middlesex.
As the first lay magistrate to speak in this debate, I want to express, on behalf of the thousands of my colleagues, appreciation to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) for their kind references to lay magis-

trates. In my experience, no body of people works harder for so little return. Magistrates certainly receive very few thanks. On occasion, it does no harm to thank them for what they do on the country's behalf.
I do not wish to go into the Bill in detail. My right hon. and learned Friend dealt with it in such clarity that I do not think that any hon. Member, unless disagreeing with certain aspects of it, need repeat what has been said. I want to make a few points in giving my general support to what is contained in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) questioned whether motorists are criminals. Whether they are criminals or not, they appear in the court lists, which are becoming heavier every day.

Mr. Peter Mahon: That is my whole point. The work of the courts is becoming much more difficult as each day passes. Some motoring offences are of a very serious character and deserve the utmost opprobrium, but for the most part those who are brought before the courts for motoring offences have never seen the inside of a court before and are not really offenders against society. This is my reason for thinking that in the not too distant future serious thought should be given to the question whether the local police court is the right and proper place to deal with motorists.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech in the guise of an intervention.

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend. I know that he will make an effective speech later, if he succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair.
I was coming on to point out the volume of work magistrates have to cope with as a result of the lists increasing in length day by day, irrespective of whether the offenders are motorists or those charged with criminal offences. This is one of the great problems facing us. There is an historic document pinned on the notice board in the magistrates' room at one of the courts in which I sit. It may not be historic as to date, but it shows that on a day in 1932 there were 14 cases to be dealt with. Two courts sat to deal with them. On any


day of the week now at either of the two courts at which I sit, the magisrates would be very fortunate indeed if the list was less than 120. It is more likely to be 160. They would probably be sitting five courts each day.
The problem facing magistrates is that of being able to give up sufficient time from their other duties to carry out their magisterial duties effectively. This is why I welcome the provision relating to the financial loss allowance. Unfortunately, this will not solve all the problems because, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) thinks about the selection of magistrates, there still is a barrier, irrespective of political considerations. Young men with their eye on promotion do not want to upset their bosses by asking for time off to carry out magisterial duties. They therefore do not want to be considered for appointment to the bench.
We can get magistrates, but we are still not getting sufficient of the younger generation. When I suggest to my colleagues on the bench that we should have magistrates aged about 25 or 27, some of them agree but others look at me in some surprise, because this has not been known to any great extent. But that is what we should be aiming for now, to balance the ages within a petty sessional division. I hope that more employers will recognise that whether their man comes from the shop floor, the factory or the shop counter he can still make a contribution by carrying out such duties, and, in view of the financial loss allowance, will allow him to do so without prejudicing his future.
More justices will be needed as the age limit is gradually reduced. I do not know what the figure would be if all those over the age of 70 were taken off the bench now, but we should certainly need a great number even to keep up to the present strength, and we shall need even more in the future. Therefore, I hope that not only those who nominate for the bench but those who have a responsibility for allowing employees to offer themselves will bear in mind that it is a job which is well worth doing and can be done only by lay magistrates in petty sessional divisions.
I cross swords with my right hon. and learned Friend on his reference to the

election of chairmen and deputy chairmen of petty sessional divisions. Section 13(2) of the 1949 Act states:
In any petty sessions area there shall be a chairman and one or more deputy chairmen of the justices chosen from amongst themselves by the magistrates for the area by secret ballot.
With Clause 3 we are inserting a new subsection which says that the right of magistrates to vote at the elections shall be restricted
with a view to securing that the election is made by magistrates experienced as such in the area.
My right hon. and learned Friend says that that means that once magistrates have passed a probationary period they will be entitled to vote for the chairman or deputy chairmen of the bench. It may well be that even if they have passed that probationary period they will not be experienced in the way we mean experience on the bench. I hope that there will be a clearer definition of the period before they are entitled to vote in any such election.
I should now like to say a word about the secret ballot which was provided for in the 1949 Act and which is carried over into this legislation. I consider that the present system of election of chairman and deputy chairmen of a bench is completely nonsensical. We all know what secret ballots are, and my right hon. and learned Friend and I know in another connection how people are elected by secret ballot. I have no objection to that. My objection is that when one is presented with a list of every member of the bench at a magistrates' annual meeting, and asked to vote for any one of those named, it is not a secret ballot as it should be operated.
In theory, every person attending the meeting could vote for himself or herself, because who does not believe that he or she would be the best chairman of the petty sessional division? In practice, this does not happen, because people know very well who are the most exeprienced members of the bench and who are most likely to be the best chairman or deputy chairmen.
Why cannot we adopt procedures which exist in other organisations and allow members to be nominated before a meeting, with the support of a certain number of justices? That seems to me a


more reasonable way to deal with the matter than to present a list containing everybody's name. Perhaps the result would be the same, but there could be cases where people are elected as chairman or deputy chairman, because they are experienced and brilliant men and women, but they do not have the time to give to the job.
They are not asked beforehand if they will accept nomination, and I can imagine nothing more embarrassing than for someone eminently suitable to be chairman to be elected and then say that he is very sorry, but it is impossible for him to stand for business or other reasons. That would be a ridiculous situation which could be avoided if a new rule were adopted for the appointment of chairmen and deputy chairmen. I have corresponded on this matter with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who absolutely disagrees with me, and no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will also disagree when he replies.
I agree with the Bill. I do not intend to discuss the City of London, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for I do not have full knowledge of that question. I think that the Bill is a further major addition to the 1949 Act, which was itself a major step forward. I welcome it and will do all I can to see that it gets a quick passage through the House.

5.6 p.m.

Sir John Foster: There is certain force in what the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Harry Howarth) said about the nomination of the chairman and deputy chairmen of petty sessions, but only in his point about somebody who is nominated but is too busy to fulfil the function. That problem could be met by magistrates announcing beforehand that they did not want to be included on the list. It would be undesirable for people to be nominated and seconded, because that would need a certain amount of open lobbying, and a person elected chairman in a close division might know the people who opposed him.
Does the Attorney-General think that Schedule 1 has gone too far? He will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the Bill to work in the following way. Section 1 says that no person shall be a justice of the peace unless he is

appointed by a commission of the peace for the area, or, under subsection (2), is created a justice of the peace under the enactments mentioned in Schedule 1 as the holder of a certain office. The last offices shown in Schedule 1 are the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and the Commissioner of the Police Force of the City of London. The third column in the Schedule gives the area in which these justices may operate. I think it inconsistent with the new principle introduced by the Bill—with which I agree, except with regard to the City of London—that the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioners of Police should act as justices of the peace in a London commission area. It is rather unwise that the police, who might be prosecuting, and would certainly be witnesses, should have the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner or both sitting as justices. The enactments which provide for the appointments are very early nineteenth-century Acts—the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829, the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, the Metropolitan Police Act, 1856, and the City of London Police Act, 1839. In the light of that criticism, perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us what are the reasons for maintaining these offices as entitling the holders to be justices of the peace.
I agree with the principle that holding an office should no longer be an entitlement to act as a justice of the peace. I will not repeat what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), except to say that the aldermen and Lord Mayor of the City of London are in a position quite different from that of the ordinary councillor. They have a continuity and a training and an association with the courts of petty sessions which are quite different. The system has worked well, and I see no reason why the City of London should not be in an exceptional position.
I agree with the Attorney-General's reasons for having increased loss allowances. However, as the system has worked well—and both sides of the House have paid tribute to the justices at petty sessions—should not even this slight financial commitment be postponed in view of the general economic situation? However little, the saving is worth


making and the change ought to be put off for a year or two. It would not harm the system, for the principle would be accepted, but it would be consistent with the general economic climate for this small saving to be made.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. George Willis: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will remember that the proceedings on the last Bill which dealt with the administration of justice were occupied mainly by Scottish Members.

The Attorney-General: In Committee entirely by Scottish Members.

Mr. Willis: I was about to assure my right hon. and learned Friend that we have no intention of occupying the whole of the time of the House on this Bill. However, one or two issues ought to be raised.
My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that with certain small exceptions the Bill did not apply to Scotland, because J.P.s in Scotland play a much smaller part in the administration of justice because of the part played in burgh courts by bailies. The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) had something to say about ex officio justices in the City of London and about training for these duties. In the Scottish Press in the past two weeks there has been a considerable discussion about the qualifications of people to carry out the duties of bailies properly, particularly duties connected with sentencing. This is not a new subject and has been discussed by those concerned for some time. What is being done? Something should be done to make the position better. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who has some practical experience, agrees with me.
I do not understand why Clause 6 provides that Clause 4(5) is not to apply to Scotland. There is probably a very good reason, and I hope that we shall be told what it is. What would be the cost of applying Clause 4(5) to Scotland? According to the Financial Memorandum, the cost is to start at about £120,000 for the first full year, reaching a figure of £360,000 for the whole country. How much is to be spent in Scotland?
I commend the Government on the acceptance of a lower retiring age, 70 instead of 75. However, I am bound to ask a question which I have asked in the House for many years: if this is good enough for those concerned with the administration of justice, surely it is good enough for judges and sheriffs. So far as I know, there is no retiring age for judges. I remember, along with my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Scotland, keeping the House here for many hours on this subject, although without success. I remember on the occasion of the Sheriffs Pension Bill having something of a battle in Committee and getting a retirement age for sheriffs, although it was more than 70. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will draw his right hon. Friend's attention to this and say that if it is good enough for J.P.s, it should be good enough for sheriffs and judges. I can see no reason why it should not be applied to sheriffs and judges, other than the fact that we have always been afraid of offering criticisms of such persons.
I have no other comments other than to welcome the provisions of the Bill as far as they apply to Scotland.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I would not ordinarily speak on a Bill of this sort—although I have been a justice of the peace—but I am extremely worried about the effect of the Bill on my constituents, both on the justices and on the judged. As we have heard, aldermen of the City of London are ex officio justices and sit alone. The Bill proposes to abolish this system, and many people would, without reflecting, say that it should be abolished. They would say that ex officio justices cannot be the best justices, and that justices who sit alone cannot be as fair as justices sitting in threes or fives.
If it is a bad system, it must have a bad record; but, as we have heard, it turns out to have a very good record. This is not just a matter of muttering comfortably, "It seems to work very well"; it is a matter of figures. City justices deal with 19,000 cases a year and in the last 22 years only five decisions have been reversed on appeal by way of case stated to the Divisional Court of the


High Court, and in this latest year only six appeals from City justices were allowed by quarter sessions.
This marvellous record has been widely recognised. The remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in 1948 have been mentioned. He also said:
The City Courts have for many years been singularly free from criticism.…I do not recall a single instance of an appeal"—from the City Justices to his own court—"which is a striking tribute to the wisdom and care with which those courts perform their duties.
The present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, said recently:
The Aldermen are now to be sacrificed on the altar of consistency.
He said that a case had not been made out for what he called "this drastic step", and he told the City justices:
You must be amongst the most experienced justices in the country.… I only hope that second thoughts may prevail.…Her Majesty's Judges have always had, and still have, complete confidence in you as Justices of the Peace.
That must show the argument that the system does not work to be untenable. In the passage that I have read out the Lord Chief Justice referred to the "altar of consistency." Consistency is rather a good thing, but the altar on which the Aldermen are to be sacrificed, according to the Lord Chancellor, is the altar of uniformity, which is not at all the same thing as consistency. Uniformity for its own sake is a detestable argument—the argument that "no one else does that" is a dreadful argument, unworthy even of the small schoolboys, who use it most often. Uniformity is the enemy of civilised life and it leads straight to the ant-heap. We in this House are the very last people to argue uniformity. Practically every human advance has been achieved by strictly non-uniform people, who do precisely what "no one else does".
The uniformity argument is closely allied to the argument about the danger of precedents. This is another dreadful schoolboys' argument, "what would happen if everyone did that?" If the City of London is to be left alone, people say, what about all the other ex officio justices of the peace? This argument is a non-starter. There is no danger at all of creating a precedent. The business of the

courts in the City is quite unlike that of other courts. We here may be able to thrust uniformity on the justices, but we cannot make the cases uniform. As we have heard, in the City, cases about children and matrimonial matters take up very little time, and commercial cases take up a lot of time.
In my view disposing of this argument about the danger of precedents leads to the final disposal of the argument about uniformity. I reject the idea of uniformity in principle, as I have said, but the only possible justification of a uniform system throughout the country would be if the circumstances were uniform throughout the country. But they are not. We have heard of the need for "a cross-section of the public" as Justices. That will be excellent in Courts which have to tackle a cross-section of cases, but is it really to be supposed, dogma apart, that Mr. Average will be very useful or happy with a Customs case lasting 26 days, as cases do last in the City; or will Mrs. Average, or his or her employers or the taxpayers, who will have to pay five justices' wages for 26 days, be very happy, particularly since the taxpayer is now getting the whole thing free in the City of London?
What is wanted is not uniformity but consistency—a consistent system where the courts consistently suit the business that they have to deal with. In addition, confidence is needed, as the Attorney-General said. He spoke of the need for the public to have confidence in the judges. In the City those who are judged are more likely to have confidence in Aldermen than in what is described as a cross-section of the public.
There remains another reason that has been advanced against the present system, I understand by the Lord Chancellor. It is that other justices were resentful about ex-officio justices who have no obligation to undergo training. Of course in fact City justices do all undergo training, more thorough indeed than other justices: but this is also a disgraceful argument. I am extremely doubtful whether as many people feel envy and resentment as is often said. I do not believe that the electorate generally is consumed by these un-Christian passions—and if they are, the Government should certainly not pander to them. I would remind the House that


in the Middle Ages envy was represented in sculpture and stained glass as a figure eating a human heart. I hardly think that that is a very attractive posture for a Labour Government. Surely the job of governments is to encourage what is best in people, not to pander to the worst in them.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the arguments based on uniformity are not valid; the arguments based on the danger of precedent are not valid; the arguments based en envy and resentment are unpleasant and invalid: and the arguments based on inefficiency are invalid too. Indeed, as I have shown, the system works extremely well.
This is an age of disintegration. No doubt it sometimes feels to all of us as if we have dismantled practically everything. This is surely no time to dismantle something which, however much some may dislike it in theory or principle, is something which we know does work.
I have directed my arguments not to history, not to dignity and status, nor to political stuff about the Government's wish to tilt at the City, all of which I might have done. I have tried to limit my arguments to reason, and to the need for good, cheap justice in the City of London, which is provided by the present system, and which will not be provided by the proposed system. I earnestly hope that on all these excellent grounds the House will agree with me.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: In the main this is an excellent Bill, and I am particularly gratified to see the provisions in Clause 4 with regard to travelling subsistence and financial loss allowances. There are, however, points of criticism that I desire to make. First of all, with regard to Clause 2 which deals with the age limit. It may be a question of personal prejudice, because I suppose that many of us are approaching very near the age mentioned there. The point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) when he referred to the difficulty in obtaining persons fitted to discharge the duties of justices of the peace is important.
The more elderly people, if I may use that rather innocuous term, are those who

have more time. It is quite true that many people attaining the age of 70 are quite unfitted, by reason of some infirmity, or by reason of the gradual deterioration in their intelligence, to discharge duties of this kind.
On the other hand, the right hon. and learned Attorney-General must recognise that there are many people over the age of 70 who can quite well discharge these duties, who have the ability, and moreover the time to do this. It may be that they have retired. It is particularly important to notice the exclusion in Clause 2(1,a,i) of persons who hold or have held the office of chairman or deputy chairman of a court or quarter sessions, or who have been recorders of a borough, and those who have held or hold high judicial office. Why are they excluded? Why are they exempted from the possibility of deterioration? I know that they are very important people and that we have great respect for them, but there are many instances of people well over the age of 70—Lord Goddard is one of them —having continued their service for many years with tremendous knowledge and ability.
I should think that there are many people well over that age who could discharge the duties of justice of the peace. The Lord Chancellor might well achieve the object in the Bill by providing diplomatically for the transfer to the supplemental list of people whom he thought were unfitted. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that and achieving exactly the same object. That is my criticism on Clause 2.
I wish to say something more strongly in support of the case put forward by the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) and the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom. I agree that the mayors of boroughs who are elected for one year cannot be expected to have the training necessary to enable them to carry out their duties. It is proper that the Bill should provide that such people should no longer be appointed as justices of the peace. But what is the argument concerning the City of London? I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that it cannot be based on prejudice. We are the last party in the world to talk about prejudice in that direction. Is the argument uniformity? Or is it that the City


of London is an anomaly? It is agreed that it is an anomaly, but we do not get rid of systems which work simply because they are anomalies.
Surely the proper way in which to examine this matter is to ask whether the system works. I am sure that the Attorney-General, with all his experience at the Bar, would agree that the system in the City of London works as well as, if not better than, the system in other parts of the country. I speak from personal experience. I know of very few appeals from aldermen sitting in the City of London which have been successful. There is great force in the point that many of the cases in the City of London are financial cases. They take a long time to try, and it is very suitable to have an alderman with business experience who can try them. In these days, the financial aspect is very important. Why should we discharge these unpaid gentlemen from carrying out their duties and in their place appoint other justices of the peace —two to sit in the place of one? It is true that two sit in other places, but in the City of London the system works.
I know that many hon. Members on this side, in particular, criticise the City of London and many of its institutions. I do so myself. But when it comes to administering justice we should, particularly in these days when finance matters, ask ourselves whether we should be justified in substituting another system for the present system. I suggest to the Attorney-General that we should re-examine this matter and see whether the change is justified.
Those are my two criticisms of the Bill. Apart from them, I support the Bill, and think that it is excellent.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said that the Labour Party was the last party to talk of prejudice. He should not be so modest about the prejudices of the Labour Party. It seems to me that the provisions in this otherwise excellent Bill for removing from the City of London what is regarded as the privilege of having aldermen and the mayor as justices can only be due to prejudice.
The Attorney-General made out no separate case, and nor did he attempt to

do so, for dealing with the City of London. He lumped it under the umbrella of those who carry out the judicial function by reason of another office. On the test of practicability, does the City of London system work well? I have no personal experience of the magistrates court in the City of London, but all the reports that I have are to the effect that it works very well. Does the system cost the country a great deal of money? The answer is "No". In fact, it does not cost anything. The City of London pays for its own administration. If the Government's reform goes through and there are long cases to be tried, the Government will have to find the money. It may be a small amount, but small amounts add up.
The third important point is this. If the Bill is passed, it is highly unlikely that many of the aldermen and mayors will be appointed to the commission of the peace and will serve as such. This is no answer. Why should we upset a system which works very well for the sake of uniformity? Although I have no personal interest in the City of London, it seems to me fantastic to make a change of this kind, without justification for it being given, simply to have a uniform system throughout the country.
The City of London, if it is nothing else, is a unique city in the world. It has evolved in a certain way. It has been the financial and commercial centre of the world for many years. I see no reason why its present system for the administration of justice should not continue. It seems to be very good and to give general satisfaction.
The Bill should generally be welcomed, although I should like to be reassured by the Attorney-General—and this arises from remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster)—about the financial provisions of the Bill. The Attorney-General referred to the fact that we were in an economically difficult situation and that the financial provisions would not be brought into effect until we reached a more propitious moment in the history of the country.
I should now like to refer to something which disturbs me, namely, the proposed retiring age of 70. There is a good deal to be said for laying down a retiring age. I do not think that the hon.


and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North, if he reflected on the matter, would pursue with enthusiasm his suggestion that the Lord Chancellor should compulsorily retire some justices and leave others on the bench. It would be invidious if the Lord Chancellor had to give reasons why one justice retired at 70 and another continued in office. The fact that a man of 70 was regarded by friends and colleagues as no longer capable of serving on the bench might be the last thing that he wanted to know. In my younger days, I often thought that it was a pity that the Lord Chancellor did not have power to retire High Court judges. As a young Counsel, I thought that some judges kept their faculties better than others.
However, it is necessary to draw a line somewhere. What disturbs me is why the age should be 70 for justices of the peace, 72 in other respects and 75 in certain other respects. I should declare an interest as I am a chairman of quarter sessions, although, despite my appearance, I am not quite knocking at the door of the age of 70. It is difficult to justify a retirement age of 70 for justices of the peace and a higher age for chairmen of quarter sessions or High Court judges. If there is evidence in the Lord Chancellor's possession, as I understood the Attorney-General to suggest, that faculties tend to deteriorate at this age, or that it would be better for some magistrates to retire at 70, I should have thought that it ought to be of general application and apply across the board.

Mr. Weitzman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman apply that to High Court judges as well?

Mr. Hooson: Whether it should be 70, 72 or 75 is a matter for argument, but the same age should apply when one considers the age at which one should cease to exercise a judicial function.
The Schedules of the Bill seem to provide a fertile ground for the legal historians of the future, with the Amendments and repeals resulting from them.
I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman drop a hint that the old office of Custos Rotulorum might not cease to exist. It is one of the most ancient offices in the land which costs very little and performs a useful and

practical function in that holders of the office help in the preservation of records. I am glad that the Government have had second thoughts about it in view of the representations which have been made.
Otherwise, this is an admirable Bill which carries out a necessary tidying up operation. One is glad to see that the Government have found time to bring it in. So often this kind of tidying up operation is pushed to the back of the queue and never gets done. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing it in now.

5.42 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I want to thank the Attorney-General for his kind remarks about me, in view of the fact that I am going to make some little criticism about the manner in which the concession has been granted that I have been asking for for four or five years in Private Members' Bills and for which I was about to ask in another Private Member's Bill in a few weeks' time.
Generally, the Bill is a very good one. People do not realise what lay magistrates do. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the number of cases in which they are involved and pointed out that 90 per cent, of cases in the magistrates' courts are dealt with by lay magistrates. No one yet has pointed out that the whole of the country's juvenile work is done by lay magistrates, with the exception of an occasional visit by a stipendiary. It is an enormous job and something which is not to be found in any other country. A tremendous expense is saved in our juvenile courts, domestic courts and magistrates' courts generally in consequence of our having some 16,000 men and women who are prepared to give of their time and abilities to perform a useful service for the community, and it is a very useful service.
If it is regarded in that light, we ought to have sufficient sense to know that any hardship incurred by the people performing those duties should be avoided. It is true that one of the Clauses makes it possible to bring in a cross section of the community who are valuable in this type of work. We have had the same problem in Parliament and elsewhere. I do not wish to cast any reflection on


those who are prepared to give of their leisure time to serve in any capacity, but one cannot confine this kind of work to members of the leisured classes who can afford to give of their time without feeling any difficulty in their ordinary lives.
That is what the Bill is trying to cure. However, if one is applying a cure, the economy of the country ought not to prevent difficulties and hardships which have existed for a long time from being remedied, bad as things are. Compared with sums to which we have listened in debates over the years, with millions of £s being brushed aside as being matters of ordinary concern, it should not be forgotten that we are talking in terms here of a few thousand £s. I hesitate to employ an expression which may sound rather cheap, but that sort of figure is chicken feed compared with expenditures which are made elsewhere.
Two years ago, in 1965, a lay magistrate wrote, saying:
I would like to state that less than one month ago three examining magistrates sat on what was stated to be the longest hearing in the history of the Court. The case concerned two motor dealers who were charged with stealing a number of motor cars and then converting them to their own use. There were 75 charges in all, and 62 witnesses were heard. The hearing lasted seven days.
By the standards prevailing today, where it is possible to take evidence without calling witnesses, I know that it would take less.
Two of the magistrates, including myself, live about one and a half miles from the court, and the other magistrate lives nearer. It was impossible to get home for a meal and on each occasion it was necessary to purchase a lunch in a restaurant. Even the cup of tea which we had during an afternoon break had to be paid for. To a magistrate who, like myself, has only one income, the retirement pension, this does create considerable hardship. On normal days when the court is sitting I am unable to arrange to have my meal at home as one does not know how long one will be required to sit until the cases proceed.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend wait any longer for the economic situation to improve so that he can help a case like that? It is a ridiculous position.
I can remember talking about the crow flying three miles and suggesting that it was more a case of the crow walking

down Piccadilly at a busy time and getting on a bus. The time involved in getting back to one's home is something which a magistrates cannot avoid. If he is hearing a case, he cannot tell the parties to come back later because he is going home to have a meal and lives some distance from the court.
This is not a case where something is being asked for which has not been reasonably requested for years. I appreciate that there is a new provision that other forms of subsistence should be allowed. That is very reasonable and proper. I am not at all sure that it ought not to be brought into existence straight away, because, if we need magistrates, we shall have to find them from somewhere. How on earth shall we get the kind of magistrate we want if people cannot afford to sit on the Bench?
I am therefore making an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend. I know that he is sympathetic and understands the position. If he sits down with his colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and considers this matter, I think he will agree that £20,000 or £30,000 a year will not ruin the country if justice is done, but we may lose the services of these good people. I am talking about the first lot, not the subsistence allowance, which in my view will not cover a tremendous amount anyway. He ought to consider that a stipendiary magistrate is paid £4,500 or £4,750 a year.
It is true that two magistrates have to sit, but 16,000 magistrates being replaced by 8,000 stipendiaries at £4,500 a year each would run into many millions. I calculate that the country is saved about £20 million a year. It may be less than that amount if properly calculated by a person who understood arithmetic, but I managed to get it to about £20 million as the minimum sum. So we are saving about £20 million, taking into account the fact that these people do not sit as long as stipendiaries, but stipendiaries do not sit so long according to our hours of sitting here. They have reasonable hours. They do useful work, of course, but the fact of the matter is that this money is saved.
I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend not to adopt a cheeseparing attitude on a matter of this sort. He has


conceded that it is essential, in the interests of the country, that we have the best type of person, from whatever ranks they may come. For goodness sake, do not talk about waiting until the economic situation is put right. It may be put right in a week or a year. I do not know. There again, I would not claim to be an authority. But, if it is only a year, we cannot afford to lose those people who are being of great service to us and new people who will be of service to us.
I make that appeal in the hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, or whoever is to reply, will rise and say, "Well, after all, we cannot be mean about this matter. We must do the right thing in providing what we consider to be the right kind of person to do the job."

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: At the outset of his speech, the Attorney-General, after certain preliminary matters and reminding us of what happened in the last changes in 1949, said that over nearly 20 years which have passed since then "the need has become apparent for changes". Those were the words I wrote down as being exactly what he said.
He would probably agree that this was the necessary foundation for all that followed. In other words, one does not change for the sake of change, but, if the need has become apparent for any particular change, no one in the House would for a moment stand out against it. I therefore take that as being the test which he set himself, and I am sure that the House would accept it as a very practical one.
One has then to apply it to these Measures. I concede at once, as did other hon. Members, that in relation to many of the provisions of the Bill that test is fully satisfied. Plainly the need has become apparent for paying some form of subsistence allowance so that there shall not be citizens, willing, suitable and fit to do this responsible duty, who cannot afford to do it. The need has become apparent. Likewise, one can put forward the same view in relation to others of the changes.
I listened with the greatest care to the whole of the Attorney-General's speech for anything in it which gave any sup-

port to the proposition that a need had become apparent for either reducing the age of retirement or abolishing the existing system in the City of London. I suggest that if he looks again at his own speech, it is barren of any evidence to support either of those propositions.
The case relating to die City of London has been so fully and excellently deployed that I would not dream of saying more than that I agree with it. I confine myself to asking that whoever is to reply to this debate will address his mind to the question: what is the evidence which supports the proposition that a need has become apparent to abolish the existing system in the City of London? That is the relevant question, and it is plain that many hon. Members believe that the answer must be that there is no evidence to support that proposition and therefore one ought to make an exception.
I turn now to the other change, for which again I suggest there is no evidence, namely, the further reduction in the age of retirement. Everyone so far has agreed without reservation that magistrates do a magnificent job of work. One cannot exaggerate this too much. They are doing a job which it would be impossible to get done in any other way, save over a very long period of time, and they do it extremely well. Everybody agrees that because they are doing such a splendid job and because it is such an important job it is necessary that the best people available should be invited to do it. Everybody agrees that it is wholly desirable that the range of people doing this job should be extended to cover as wide a sphere as possible so that one gets a variety of interest and experience brought to bear on this important task.
It is for that reason that the subsistence allowance provisions are introduced. Yet illogically, as I suggest, whilst on the one hand we are trying to extend the range to cover as wide a range of possibilities as we can, we are limiting it in one purely arbitrary respect, namely, age. I stress that that is a purely arbitrary limitation. There is no magic in the age of 70 or 75. It has no particular reference to efficiency, ability, faculties or anything else. It is a purely arbitrary limitation which we are placing against


our own avowed interest of making available to this important task everybody who is suitable for it. I suggest that in almost every respect we are going in the wrong direction so far as age is concerned.
It is said that 55 is the maximum age for appointment. This rather limits the field, but it is possible to get a number of people with a variety of experience at that age, though it may be that to begin with they can serve for only one day a fortnight. When they reach the age of 65 and retire, they have 10 years' experience, both in the courts and outside, and presumably are all the better for it. They also have more time on their hands and are likely to be willing to assume more burdens, but, by this provision, without any sort of reference to their ability, at the age of 70 they will be retired and the community will be deprived of the benefit of their services for five years.
What is the evidence to support the proposition that the need has become apparent for that change? Is it that a large number of successful appeals are being brought against the decisions of magistrates over 70? Is it that a lot of complaints are being received against magistrates over 70? I do not believe that it is either of those things. Is it simply the difficulty that is found on occasions in getting rid of those few magistrates who, though no longer really capable of doing the job, will not retire gracefully? If this is the reason, it is a bad one. It may be easier to deal with the matter in this way rather than in any other, but this is a bad reason for making this purely arbitrary decision in a sphere which, in every other way, we are trying to expand.
I hope that the Attorney-General and his colleagues will look again at both those aspects of the Bill, and will change their minds. I do not think that we are asking very much. It is fashionable amongst the Attorney-General's colleagues to change one's mind, and the changes for which we are asking are very small by comparison with some others. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this again, and to apply his own test to it. Unless that test is fully satisfied, he should change his view and alter both these provisions.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: It is with some trepidation that I rise to take part in this debate, first, because I am not a lawyer, secondly, because I am not a justice of the peace, and never have been and, thirdly, because, fortunately, so far I have had no direct consumer interest in the workings of the magistrates' courts. My qualifications for speaking are, first, that I am married to a magistrate, and, secondly, that over a period of time I have observed the working of the magistrates' court system in my locality, and my conclusion is that on the whole it works very well.
I welcomed the recent innovation of magistrates having to undergo a course of training of one kind or another. This involves attending a number of lectures, many of which are held during the day. Will the loss of time allowance apply to magistrates while they are attending courses of instruction, as well as while they are sitting in the performance of their duties? If it is not to apply in the former case, there may still be a considerable deterrent to people becoming magistrates if they have to attend a number of lectures and thereby lose a considerable amount of money.
I am worried about one weakness in the system. A number of magistrates do not have as wide a knowledge and understanding of all the various sections of the community as I would like them to have. I think that magistrates tend to be drawn from too limited a section of the population. I did a little homework over the weekend in connection with my local bench. I analysed the professions and occupations of its members. I found that 20 were professional people—people from universities, doctors, teachers, who, incidentally, are all heads, architects, and so on—18 were businessmen, ranging from a small shopkeeper to the managing director of quite a large firm, 5 were what I classified as office workers, 3 were full-time trade union officials, 16 were housewives, some of whom may have part-time occupations, or even full-time ones, and—and this is the sad thing—only 2 who could be classified as manual workers. The Bill goes some way—but only some way —to getting more manual workers on to


the bench, and getting a wider range of people appointed as justices.
The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) referred to payments for loss of time, but one must consider the general time factor involved in sitting on the bench. My city demands that its magistrates sit for one day a week. If someone seeks an appointment as a magistrate, he is required to give one day a week to the job. The Attorney-General referred to the Civil Service and nationalised industries giving their employees 18 days' leave a year to enable them to perform their public duties.
A colleague of mine in Southampton was recommended as a magistrate. He works for the Ordnance Survey Department, and is allowed 18 days a year to perform his public duties. If he were to add those 18 days to his annual leave allowance, he still would not have enough time to meet the obligation placed on him of having to sit one day a week, which, allowing for holidays, is about 46 days a year. I do not know whether this applies in other parts of the country. It does not, of course, usually work out like that. It often happens that a magistrate works for half a day, but the condition is for one day a week, and this debars many people, from a variety of occupations, from applying to become magistrates. They are frightened off by his one day a week requirement. The answer is, of course, greatly to increase the number of magistrates. If we were to demand one day a fortnight, instead of one day a week, it would open up the appointment of magistrates to a much wider variety of people, and we could, therefore, have more magistrates.
I think that there is a need to appoint younger magistrates. As far as I know, my wife, who is 37, is the youngest magistrate on her bench, or if not the youngest, the youngest but one. As far as I can ascertain, only two or three magistrates on my bench, which is 67 strong, are under 40.
On the juvenile bench, out of 11 magistrates, only 3 are under 50. In these days it is important to have a much greater number of young magistrates because of the greater variety of juvenile offenders who now appear before the courts. There is a need for

people who have an understanding of the problems of youth to sit on these benches, and I plead for the appointment of more magistrates in the 30 to 35 age group.
The right hon. and learned Member for Epsom made the interesting observation that it might be difficult to get young women magistrates, because they had young children to look after. Clause 4 refers to:
financial loss allowance where for that purpose there is incurred by him any other expenditure to which he would not otherwise be subject…".
Does that provision, as the similar provision in regard to local government does, cover the case of, for example, a young woman magistrate with two children under school age who has to employ someone to look after her children while she is performing her duties on the bench? I hope that it does, because it would be an important step forward.

The Attorney-General: I give that assurance at once, as I can regarding the proposal that these allowances should apply in respect of attendance at courses of instruction, when they are introduced.

Mr. Mitchell: Very good. Now, a few words about the system for appointing magistrates. There is far too much secrecy and mumbo-jumbo in the method of appointment of magistrates. I remember with some amusement the occasion when my wife received a letter after someone had recommended her for appointment to the bench. The letter said nothing about the bench. It was signed by a firm of solicitors, who were clerks to the justices, and it said something to the effect that, if she came along for interview at a certain time, she might learn something to her advantage. On the strength of it, she nearly went out and bought a new coat, thinking that dear old Aunt Ada in Australia or somewhere had left her a fortune. She was quite surprised when she learned the truth.
I do not know whether that sort of thing still happens, but it aroused my interest and I began to go into the whole question of appointments. I tried to find out who sat on the Lord Chancellor's local advisory panel. This really was an exercise. By accident, I found out the name of one person who was on the panel. I went along and asked for the names of the


others. Oh, dear—this was too much; he did not want to admit that he sat on the panel himself, let alone give the names of the others. It took me three weeks of solid detective work—I was not a Member of Parliament then, so I had the time—to find out the names of the members of the Lord Chancellor's local advisory panel. This is all rather nonsensical. I see no reason why, in modern conditions, the names of the members of the Lord Chancellor's advisory panel should not be published.
It is not generally realised that any individual can recommend another individual to become a magistrate. No matter who one is, one can write and suggest that one's next-door neighbour would be a suitable person. What happens after the nomination goes in no one quite knows. It is all wrapped up in a good deal of mystery. I understand the need for care and, perhaps, the need for private investigations to be undertaken, but I cannot help feeling that the whole thing is wrapped in too much mystery, a state of affairs which, in fact, is a deterrent against more people becoming magistrates.
I echo what has been said from this side earlier and endorse the plea to the Attorney-General not to wait for the country's economic situation to improve before bringing the monetary part of the Bill into operation. I cannot believe that £350,000, the figure which has been mentioned, will break the country at this time. This is a long overdue reform. I welcome the Bill in general. Please, may they have the money quickly?

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly for both its spirit and its content. It deals with the most important branch of our judicial system for the ordinary citizen. Few citizens ever set foot in the High Court or the county court. There is a much greater chance that the citizen will find himself in the magistrates' court either as a witness or, unfortunately nowadays, as a defendant.
The magistrates' courts have changed little in their composition or their buildings in the past 100 years. We should

always remember that 98 per cent, of all indictable offences are tried in the magistrates' courts, and the vast majority of cases which are tried there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) pointed out, motoring cases. So the defendant who appears in the magistrates' court today is not the type of defendant who may have appeared there in Dickens' time, the thug. Very often, he is a motorist, an intelligent motorist, a man who does not normally find himself on the wrong side of the law and who is much more able to appraise the tribunal trying him than, perhaps, the defendant of the past could.
One reason why things have changed little is that in this country—I speak of England and Wales, excusing Scotland of this charge—we have always tried to get our justice on the cheap. We may pay expensively for law but we have always tried to get justice on the cheap. As a result, we have our system of unpaid lay magistrates. So far, the system has worked very well. Whether it will continue to work well, however, is a matter of supposition, in view of the increasing complexity of the law and the growing volume of cases coming before magistrates.
I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend's attention the proposals submitted to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor by the Law Society, which suggested that there might ultimately be a hybrid system, as it were, combining the present stipendiary magistrate and the lay magistrate, a system under which one would have a qualified lawyer as chairman of the bench but kept in check by two lay magistrates. However, that may well be 10 or 20 years off. The Bill is urgently needed to reform the magistrates' courts as they are now.
I welcome the proposal to abolish the office of ex officio justice. Nowadays, as a result of the efforts of my noble Friend, magistrates undergo training, and thereafter they gain experience. In such circumstances, why should a transitory population of justices sit with them? The ratio appears to be one in eight. These ex officio justices sit with their qualified colleagues on the bench, but they have been appointed not because of any capabilities as magistrates but merely because,


over a period of years, they have been successful in winning local elections and have become mayors or chairmen of local councils.
What do these justices do when they go on the bench? Two courses are open 10 them. Either they sit mute and rubberstamp the decisions of their colleagues, in which case their presence on the bench is a waste of their time and their colleagues' time, or, worse still, they intervene in cases, often to the alarm of the clerk and the dismay of the public.
Ex officio magistrates can be a menace in the criminal courts, but the position is even worse in the exercise of the very wide jurisdiction which magistrates' courts have in matrimonial matters. In a matrimonial court, the magistrates may well be deciding a question far more important than a fine or even a sentence of imprisonment. They decide the future lives of the parties to the dispute. More important than that, they may be deciding the future of the innocent children of the marriage. On the financial side alone, when a magistrate in a matrimonial court makes an affiliation order for, say, £2 a week, he is, in effect, giving judgment for £1,600 over the 16 years involved.
It is ludicrous to have sitting on such a case a man who is not necessarily a man of tact, a man who has not necessarily got understanding, who has no judicial knowledge, who has no magistrate's experience in handling such cases, and who, as I have said, is sitting in the seat of judgment merely because he happens to be a chairman of a council or a mayor.
The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) put a most interesting case to the House. All hon. Members listen with great interest to an hon. Gentleman who deals with matters known to him within his own constituency. The hon. Gentleman presented his case very fairly. He did not put it politically, but he explained very reasonably that the courts of the City of London have special responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman is not in his place at the moment, but I should like to ask him whether it is true that, in the City of London courts, most of the time is spent, as in any other court, in dealing with motoring and similar offences, and only rarely are those experienced alder-

men called upon to deal with a complicated case of fraud. By and large, the City of London magistrates' court deals with exactly the same kind of cases as do other magistrates' courts, except for matrimonial cases and the like. Therefore, even on that score, I welcome the provision, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will resist any pressure to withdraw the Measure's application to the City of London.
I also warmly welcome the payment of expenses to magistrates, which is all that the Bill suggests, so that they shall not suffer hardship for performing a public duty. As my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has said before and as my hon. Friends have said in this debate, we need to broaden the basis from which people are drawn to be magistrates. This is an urgent necessity if magistrates are to have credibility with the general public.
One of the prime reasons why some people cannot accept an appointment as magistrates is simply finance. They cannot afford to lose time from their work in order to perform this public duty. If they are on retirement pension they may find even meals and travelling difficult. It is appalling for us in this House of Commons to suggest that, regardless of their means, people who do a public duty should do it at their own expense. I, too, press my right hon. and learned Friend not to delay this provision because of the economic situation, but now to give to magistrates what is due to them.
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test in his desire to have published the names of members of the advisory committees who advise the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the appointment of magistrates. Why should they not be published? Why should this mystique—and a mystique very often misunderstood by the public—surround the appointment of justices? I am certain that those carrying out this responsible function would not in any way be influenced by anyone who might attempt to canvass them. If ever there was an appointment where canvassing directly or indirectly should disqualify, it is this. I should like that provision to be in the Bill, because it does not then vary according to the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot, but becomes Statute law.
Further, when a magistrate is appointed, I should like the reasons for his appointment to be published. The public should know why the advisory committee, the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster considered that person to be suitable as a magistrate. I can see no harm in that information being published. It would save much heartburning, and would tend to get us away, on both sides, from the system of political appointments. As it is, when certain people are appointed it is self-evident that the appointments result from their being local councillors, or being active in a political party, a trade union, or a chamber of commerce. If we can get away from that position and, instead, appoint housewives, people from the factories, and other suitable persons, and publicise the reasons for their appointment, it would help a good deal to broaden the basis of choice.
Consideration might also be given to the position of mayors who are lawyers. I have had the experience, being interested in politics and being also a solicitor, of finding myself about to be made the mayor of my own borough. I had to seek from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in my case, a dispensation not to be put on the bench. Had I been appointed, not only I but all my partners would have been forbidden to practise anywhere within the County of Lancaster. That would seriously have prejudiced my partners, if not myself in particular. Will the provision which allows a mayor to sign various documents as though he were on the supplementary list require a lawyer mayor to seek a dispensation from the proper authority? It should not be necessary for him to have to do that.
The Bill helps members of my profession who are interested in politics, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends who are not lawyers will not denigrate it on that account.

The Attorney-General: In order to save my dealing with a multiplicity of points when closing the debate, if I am allowed to do so, I may say that there will be no need for difficulty to arise about the function of signing documents, which is a duty that those on the supplementary list can still perform.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I must apologise for having been absent

for a very large part of the debate—I had not intended to intervene—and I hope that it will not be considered discourteous of me to say that I believe that making the retirement age 70 instead of 75 is rather arbitrary. I know a number of magistrates who at 75 are completely capable of doing an excellent job. There are others who, at 60, may not, for other reasons, be so well qualified as die older person. One infirmity that is very detrimental to a magistrate's performing his office succesfully is deafness. I would rather appear before a 75-year-old magistrate who was sound of eye and ear than before one of 55 who was not so good on those counts.
In many walks of life, men and women of over 70 are making an important contribution—in this honourable House, on the bench, practising as lawyers, and the like—and to draw the line arbitrarily at that age is a mistake. Would the learned Attorney-General consider the possibility of some kind of affirmation or readoption of a magistrate at the age of 72 or 73? Or he might be elected by his fellows. By drawing the line at 70, especially at this time, we would lose people who had the wish, the time, and certainly the energy to give the kind of public service that a magistrate can give.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mahon: I am particularly pleased that the Bill has not been represented by any hon. Member as a great move forward. It has points that people will be able to applaud, but that is the most that can be said for it. In the main, it can be described as nebulous.
I went into a factory in my constituency the other day, and commended a young apprentice on his tremendous craftsmanship. Whether he was afraid of the salutary aspect of politics today, I do not know, but he said, "Yes, Mr. Mahon—it is a pity that Members of Parliament do not serve an apprenticeship." I told him, "But they do—and very often it is a very long apprenticeship. They become members of a political party, councillors, aldermen, mayors and magistrates." This is a good and long apprenticeship.
What amazes me about the Bill is that those who have been mayors for a short or long period have been given short


shrift. It does not make sense to me that a mayor should be considered not a right and proper person to be a magistrate, although he had become the chief magistrate of the town. It has always been a dual, time-honoured distinction that the mayor should become the chief magistrate of the town. Why should we seek in this Bill to dispose of that honour, which has been applied to people who are often magistrates when they aspire to the mayoral chair, or if they have not enjoyed the office thus far, become magistrates very soon after because of the added experience which they have acquired? From that point of view, I think, this is a difficult position.
The age limit of 75 is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, why continue the position for another five years? If it is wrong to have people on the bench at, say. 71 or 72 years of age, why not say so? Why continue this aspect of the situation until 1973? The acid test, as my right hon. and learned Friend said earlier in the day, must always, of necessity, be efficiency and integrity.
Has the mayor, who invariably is a man of experience, with a great knowledge of his fellow men and women, fewer qualifications for the position of magistrate than, say, the local scoutmaster or headmaster, the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker, or the normal person who has given very good service in different capacities?
The magisterial system has grown up, as local government has grown up, out of the needs of society. The present system is not deserving at this juncture of such close scrutiny. This is by no moans an urgent priority. Regrettably, in my opinion, the services coming under the microscope today are the services which have been and are serving our country very well. Local government and our methods of administering justice have been the envy of the world and part and parcel of the great traditions of our land.
The payment to magistrates, of course, is a fair and equitable thing to do. Magistrates have given and are giving their services freely and admirably without being remunerated. Were this not to be done in this day and age, splendid people would have to be excluded from the magistrates' bench because they could not afford to take time off from work;

this would be a flagrant injustice. For too long in this country we have had justice on the cheap. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes)——

Mr. Harry Howarth: Wellingborough.

Mr. Mahon: I am sorry if I appeared to be looking in the wrong direction, but I am right. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West referred to matrimonial cases, which undoubtedly demand a great knowledge of human affairs. It is the person who really cares who should adjudicate in these matters. It is the person with immense patience and a tremendous sense of dedication who has invariably had a long experience as a representative on a local authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West knows in his own professional capacity that the people who come into court with marriage difficulties are, sadly, the people who are enduring great inequalities—people who are living in one room, people who are living with a mother-in-law, or are herded together with many other people. These are the things which put many marriages on the rocks, as I know from my own experience.
I am speaking with my tongue in my cheek, because I began as a councillor, then became an alderman, then a mayor and then a magistrate, and I was many other things in between which may or may not have qualified me for the magisterial bench. I am certainly not alone in this. Looking back over the careers of hundreds of thousands of my own colleagues, I know that they have been in local government and remained good magistrates to the end of their days at 80, 83 or 84 and the country owes these men a great debt of gratitude——

Mr. Oakes: This is the very point which I was making about a chairman or, as my hon. Friend said, a mayor, who suddenly finds himself not only on the bench but sitting in a matrimonial court. Has not my hon. Friend usually found that when such people who have not been magistrates before sit on the first occasion in a matrimonial court, they leave with a profound sense of shock and surprise that such things go on in the world? This very often is what they say. Would it not be far better for


experienced magistrates to sit to hear these cases?

Mr. Mahon: I have known this and, on the other hand, I have known solicitors and members of the legal profession who have often wished to deal peremptorily with these sad cases. It is then that the forbearance of the experienced magistrate is brought to bear, and he says, "We will not have this. We want to mend this marriage if we can". I will not give myself any bouquets, but I have had the experience in court when everything has been cut and dried even to the extent of the separation allowance having been decided and when the magistrate has been expected to act as a cipher or a rubber stamp and the good man will say, "We do not want any of this; let us hear the case ". As a result, many a young couple who entered the court giving each other unkind glances have left it together, hand in hand.
Although the Bill covers many things, it omits many others and it is these omissions which give rise to many of the fears which have been voiced by hon. Members.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I welcome the Government's decision to abolish ex-officio justices of the peace. There have been murmurings against lay justices in courts, but I do not agree with those murmurings, because I have appeared in a number of these cases— I must declare an interest in this since I am a barrister—and I sometimes find that if an accused gets before the "beak" he has had it, whereas, if he goes before lay magistrates, he does have some chance of getting off. I welcome the abolition of the ex-officio justices because I cannot see justification for these people, aldermen for example, becoming justices simply for that reason.
I remember appearing as a witness before one of the aldermen of the City of London. I gave my evidence to the effect that there had been a car crash. However, the person concerned had refused to give his name and address and he said that there had been no car crash. The alderman said, "I find no evidence to the effect that there has been a car crash", and the counsel for whom I was

appearing replied, desperately, "But there is at least the evidence of Mr. Tuck". I agree that this sort of thing should be abolished.
I wonder if my right hon. and learned Friend would consider slipping into the Bill, perhaps in another place, a provision in regard to justices' clerks. On many occasions I have appeared in cases which involved fact only. After the justices had retired, the clerk was called in. I knew that the justices could not be asking his advice on law, so they had to be asking about fact. As is well known, justices may not ask advice on fact. I suggest that barristers on both sides should be allowed to go into the justices' room if the clerk goes in. Naturally, they would not say a word, but at least they could hear that justice is done and they could see that the clerk's advice is not sought on fact.
I will not comment on the question of divorce because if I have an opportunity to speak at a later stage I will advocate a system of family courts for all matrimonial matters and matters affecting children.
On the question of the age limit, I differ from the view of my right hon. and learned Friend and that of the Government as a whole. We are not all cast in the same mould. As far as I can see, there is no reason for putting on a blanket rule to embrace everybody. Some people are past it at the age of 40 and should be eased out of their jobs. I could mention a few judges who reached that stage. Others can render useful service to society until they are 90. I remind hon. Members that the greatest judgments of the late Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, as Supreme Court Justice to the United States, were made when he was between 70 and 90. Many of those judgments, which were dissenting judgments, subsequently became law. I therefore ask my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider this point.

6.43 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) for giving the Bill as a whole his blessing and to the House for the welcome which the Bill has received, broadly speaking, in the debate. Many of the matters raised


were matters of detail, which we will have to examine in Committee. I will refer to some of them before dealing with some of the main issues relating to the age limit and the provisions regarding the City of London.
It was suggested that there is too much secrecy and mumbo jumbo, as one of my hon. Friends put it, in the machinery of advisory committees and the appointment of justices. This matter has been considered by various Royal Commissions and in 1948 the Royal Commission recommended:
Members of advisory committees are drawn from all sections of the local authority. Their identity is not disclosed in order that they may be shielded from undesirable and unwanted influences in performing their duties".
Thus, the danger is that if their names were disclosed, there would be a lamentable attempt at lobbying them and an attempt to bring pressure upon them to appoint this or that magistrate. It is to avoid the risk of that sort of attempted influence that this secrecy is maintained.
I should, however, add that the name and address of the secretary of each advisory committee is published and is obtainable on application from the clerk to the council, town clerk of a borough or any clerk to the justices in the area concerned. I hope that, on reflection, and having had some experience themselves of attempted lobbying, my hon. Friends may think that the discreet arrangements whereby the identity of chairmen and members of advisory committees is kept secret is advantageous in this difficult task of selecting the best men for the magisterial bench.
Several of my hon. Friends urged the need for more young magistrates, and I entirely agree, as I am sure does my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I also agree with the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Harry Howarth) to employers to help young employees to come forward to undertake the responsibilities of magistracy. The financial provisions in the Bill will be helpful when we are in a position, as a country, to implement them; but I shall come to that later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and others criticised the

election of chairmen by secret ballot and suggested the nomination process instead. This matter was also considered by the 1948 Royal Commission, which expressed the view that there should be no nomination procedure as justices might feel embarrassed in voting for someone else who had not been nominated. And, of course, in regard to a justice who is really too busy to undertake a chairmanship, there is no reason why he should not announce in advance that he does not wish to be chairman. I have no doubt that, in practice, that is often done when that situation arises.
The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) asked me about the inclusion in Schedule 1 of the commissioners of police. I confess that I was a trifle surprised at the provision being there. The position appears to be that it would not be possible to deprive the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police of their ex officio positions as justices of the peace by a short provision in the Bill. The root of the difficulty is that the Metropolitan Police Acts are drafted on the basis and assumption that the commissioner is a justice of the peace. Unlike other chief officers of police, the Commissioner is not, in law, a constable, and there is apparently a danger that a provision which did no more than deprive him of the status of justice of die peace might strike at the present legal basis of his office and put in doubt some of his powers as chief officer of police. However, the officers concerned are, in practice, debarred by Section 1 of the 1829 Act from sitting and adjudicating as justices and their position does not, therefore, call to be dealt with in the Bill in so far as the Bill's purpose is to prevent ex officio justices from sitting on the bench.
I recognise, however, that the present situation is anachronistic and should be remedied at the first convenient opportunity. I am informed that the Home Office is seized of the matter and that it will be dealt with in due course when the Metropolitan Police Acts are next revised. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to the subject. The position of the City of London Commissioner is also somewhat obscure in this regard. I give a


similar undertaking to have active consideration given to that and to consider further whether he needs to be included in Schedule 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) and other hon. Members on either side of the House made an urgent plea that the financial provisions in the Bill should be implemented at once. Unfortunately the economic situation in this country at the moment calls for the maximum economies. In this situation every little helps. Under Clause 7(4) it is for the Home Secretary and, in Scotland, the Secretary of State to decide when to bring Clause 4 into operation. We have no doubt that sympathtic consideration will be given to what my hon. Friends have said and the implementation of these financial provisions, which I agree need implementation, will be treated as a matter of priority.
I go to the two major matters of controversy which have been canvassed in the debate. The first is the proposal to reduce the retiring age of magistrates to 70. I recognise that there is a certain inconsistency between that proposal and the intention to continue to enable High Court judges, chairmen of quarter sessions, and recorders to serve beyond that age—the doctrine, if that is the right way of putting it, that professional lawyers who have spent a lifetime in the work of the courts can well continue beyond the age that the layman could properly be expected to continue to deal with the problems of the courts. I am bound to say that I see the merit of consistency in this field and that, to express a personal view, perhaps an age limit of 70 all round may not be a bad suggestion for the future.
I recognise that this is a difficult problem. As was said so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck), we are not all cast in the same mould. Some appear senile at 40 while others are enjoying a ripe and rich use at 80. One has to make the best of the averages in these matters. There appears to be evidence that over the age of 70 there are indications of deterioration in the capacity of magistrates to cope with the increasingly difficult nature of the work of magisterial courts.
The suggestion that the Lord Chancellor should exercise discretion and pick and choose those over 70 whom experience is showing to be incompetent would be a most odious and unattractive responsibility to place upon him. I do not think anyone in this House would care to involve himself in the problems, the complaints and protests that that method of dealing with the problem would give rise to.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Could not my right hon. and learned Friend work it the other way—that the Lord Chancellor should pick and choose anyone who showed himself to be brilliant beyond the age of 70 and extend his time for a further number of years?

The Attorney-General: Any selection process of that kind would be invidious. I do not think it is really on. We have to decide on an age to make the thing workable. The age of 75 was fixed in 1949 because the Royal Commission of 1948 suggested that age. Before 1949 there was no age limit at all. The information I have is that since 1949 experience suggests that 70 would be a better limit, bearing in mind in particular the much heavier nature of the work of the magistrates' court which now has to be faced.
I come finally to the discussion we have had about the abolition of ex-officio justices. With one or two exceptions— and of course I except for the purposes of the discussion what has been said about the City of London—the proposals have been generally welcomed in the House that ex-officio justices should go. I now come to the field where, however, there has been strong disagreement. I readily concede in regard to the City of London that the standards of the administration of justice in the City magistrates' courts are high. I have already paid tribute to the work of generations of Lord Mayors and aldermen in those courts. Nevertheless, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor finds no convincing reason why the system in the City should differ so fundamentally from the rest of England and Wales, as it does.
The principles he seeks to apply to the lay magistracy are that they should not be drawn from any limited section of the population, and perforce that is


the situation prevailing among the aldermen of the City of London. The principle he thinks—and I agree with him—that should apply is that as far as practicable the magistracy should include both men and women of all walks of life. I mention women because the House will realise that no woman can become a justice of the peace in the City of London because women cannot become aldermen. The City justices have no domestic jurisdiction and no longer have jurisdiction in regard to juveniles for that reason.
The basic principle that the bench should include men and women of all walks of life is in this day and age a very important one. So also is the principle that justices of the peace should be chosen with the express object of finding in each section of the local popula-ion—again so far as that is practicable —those persons who are best fitted to administer justice. In no circumstances should appointment to the bench be somewhat adventitious. It should be the subject of a special and deliberate process.
The other principle which I submit is relevant and generally acceptable is that, save in certain exceptional instances, cases coming before magistrates' courts ought not to be tried by a single justice. There are High Court judges in the country sitting on magisterial benches quite happily with lay justices. The view of the Lord Chancellor is that the best number for a magistrates' court is three justices. Two make it difficult if there is a disagreement; there has to be a re-trial. That, experience has generally shown, is the best. Broadly speaking in the context of the constitution of the court representing the whole spectrum of the population, it is the most acceptable bench for England and Wales at this time.

Mr. Weitzman: I gather that the provisions of Clause 4 will not come into force at once because of the economic position?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Weitzman: Does my right hon. Friend suggest that Clause 1(6), dealing with the exclusion of the City of London, which means a greater financial provision, should come in immediately the Act has passed?

The Attorney-General1: My information is that there will be no additional expense, no additional financial involvement as a result of what is proposed. The cost of the administration of justice in the City will continue, as at present, to be shared between the City Corporation, the Greater London Council, and the Exchequer. It is my information that there will be no increase in cost by reason of the proposed changes. If I am incorrect about that, I will certainly look at the financial aspect when we reach the detailed consideration of the Bill.

Sir P. Rawlinson: If this is being introduced by the Lord Chancellor on a matter of principle, will the Attorney-General tell us why as a matter of principle the Lord Chancellor permits a situation to remain under which the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) can appoint magistrates? Surely this illustrates that anomalies exist and that they are all right if they work?

The Attorney-General: Some anomalies undoubtedly exist. There cannot be total unanimity in our administration of justice, which is the product of long historical processes and practices. The rôle of the Duchy of Lancaster under its Chancellor has existed, and my right hon. Friend does his work on the basis of good advice that he receives.
Here we are in the realm of important principles that go to the very root of the administration of justice and the standards that we think should be applied. Although it is conceded that the standards of the administration of justice in the City are high, there is no reason why equally high standards should not be maintained when there are added to the City benches other suitably qualified justices, representing, however, a somewhat wider cross-section of the population, including women, and providing a bench more in keeping with the expectations of British society and of the public in the latter half of the twentieth century.
Those are the matters of principle which have influenced this decision, and I repudiate entirely any suggestion that what is proposed is in any sense inspired by malice or ill-will against the City. The contrary is the case. I am grateful for the very moderate way in which the hon. Member for Cities of London and


Westminster (Mr. John Smith) put objections to this provision which I can well understand.

Mr. John Smith: The Attorney-General has said several times that justices should be representative of the population. What does he mean by "the population" of the City? In the ordinary sense of the word, this would mean a bench composed entirely of firemen, caretakers and barristers-at-law from the Temple. Surely the aldermen are representative of the working population of the City?

The Attorney-General: Clearly the working population, as well as the residents of the City, is the population which I have in mind. As I understand it, the City area itself is housing, and will house, more and more residents. I am willing to be corrected on this, but I understand that there is likely to be a considerable increase in the residential population of the City in the near future. It is the broad spectrum of both workers in the City and residents in the City that I have in mind. This is the justification for the application to the City also of the principle which applies to the rest of England and Wales and which has produced such remarkably high standards throughout the country.
Tribute has been paid in the debate to the standards of administration of justice in England and Wales. Those standards are high at all levels in the administration of justice. Though I can understand that the aldermen of the City and those who have seen them at work will be unhappy about this, I ask them to accept that this proposal is inspired by the highest of principles in regard to the administration of justice and we are confident that no damage will be suffered by the City by reason of the change. I therefore hope that in the end the City will be able to accept these proposals with a cheerful heart.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on the question of the amount of the time local advisory committees should be expected to demand from potential magistrates?

The Attorney-General: I should like notice of that question. It is expected that magistrates shall sit for 20 days, I believe.

Sir P. Rawlinson: That is less than the relevant figure for the City.

The Attorney-General: In the City the average sitting is 26 days for aldermen. The answer which I have now received from below the Gallery is that it is expected that newly appointed magistrates will sit for 26 days a year. If I am not mistaken, that is about the average number of sitting days of aldermen of the City of London. I pay tribute to that degree of service.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to justices of the peace, it is expedient to authorise any such increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of moneys provided by Parliament as may be attributable—
(a) to making allowances payable under sections 8 and 36 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (at rates to be prescribed under those sections) to justices of the peace and to members of probation and after-care committees or case committees where in order to perform their duties they incur expenditure on things other than travelling and subsistence or suffer a loss of earnings or national insurance benefit; or
(b) to removing from those sections the restriction on payment of an allowance to a person for duties performed not more than three miles from his usual place of residence; or
(c) to facilitating the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances under section 8 to paid chairmen or deputy chairmen of quarter sessions.—[The Attorney-General.]

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: The Money Resolution deals with the very provision which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that no money is to be spent on at present. The House is therefore in the curious position of being asked to agree to a Money Resolution, although no money is to be spent on this matter until the economic situation improves. I do not think that my right hon. and learned


Friend dealt fully with this aspect. I ask him to say more now, because, according to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, the sum involved will be £120,000 in the first full year. That is not a great deal of money to spend in relieving from hardship people who are doing a public service. At the end of three years the sum involved will be only £360,000. Can my right hon. and learned Friend expedite the putting into force of the provisions relating to paying the expenses of justices?

7.10 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what I said at the close of the debate on the Second Reading, namely, that when it is possible to do it consistently with maintaining the present active economy drive it will be done. I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary know the need for it. I will see that the strong views expressed in the House on the matter are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are responsible. But I ask the House at any rate to give us the powers to do this when the time is appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Every visitor to this country tells us— as if we did not already know—that we do not get enough sunshine. Perhaps that was why there was a pretty negative response to the proposal that what the Bill calls British Standard Time should be called permanent Summer Time. It is not just that we do not have enough sunshine. Our geographic position ensures that we do not get enough daylight during our long winter months. The further north and east we live, the more this is so. In midwinter, London has only seven hours 51 minutes between sunrise and sunset. In Inverness, there are only six hours 36 minutes. Daylight is so precious that we must make the best use we can of it.
The Bill does not legislate to give us more daylight—one might suppose from the arguments of Sir Alan Herbert in The Times that we were seeking to reduce the hours of daylight. But it does recognise that ways of life have changed since 1884, when Greenwich mean time was established. We are now, like it or not, primarily a town-dwelling society, increasingly dependent upon overseas commerce. There have for many years been indications that the old time system, framed for a different type of community, was becoming less suited to our needs and that the time was approaching for a change such as the Bill introduces.
It is, in fact, the culmination of a long process, starting with adjustments made originally purely for the summer. Hon. Members will be aware that it was Mr. William Willet who first conceived the idea of advancing the clocks by one hour. He was the real pioneer in daylight saving. It was as a result of his persistence that in 1908 a Bill, called the Daylight Saving Bill, was laid before the House and found its way to a Select Committee which reported favourably on the Measure. However, despite the untiring efforts of Mr. Willet and his supporters—there were repeated attempts to


introduce such Measures—the proposal did not receive sufficient support. Legislation was eventually passed only in 1916, as a war time measure primarily to save fuel. The system was designated Summer Time, and so it has remained.
Since then, although the period has varied, there has not been a break in the operation of Summer Time for almost 52 years, and few of us in the House— certainly not I—will admit to being able to recall the time—over half a century ago— when our clocks kept Greenwich mean time throughout the year. During the last war Greenwich mean time did not operate at all. Summer Time was extended throughout the year and in addition, for a time, there was a period of double summer time.
In 1947, during the serious fuel crisis, an Act was passed which provided for the period of summer time laid down in the Summer Time Acts of 1922–1925 to be varied for any year by Order in Council. In recent years, this power has been regularly used, and it is in use now, so that the clocks will be put forward —permanently if the Bill is passed—on 18th February. We are now enjoying—or perhaps I should use the neutral word, "experiencing"—the very last month of Greenwich mean time.
In recent years there has been growing public support for a longer period of Summer Time. It was the inquiry undertaken in the winter of 1959–60 which originally sparked off the Bill. About 180 organisations, representing a wide variety of interests all over the country, were consulted. The replies indicated two outstanding preferences: first, that there should be Summer Time all the year round, and second that the period of Summer Time should begin earlier and end later.
Numerically, there was a slight preference for the first, but those against this choice included some important special interests, the chief of which I shall name, so as to illustrate the profound shift of opinion that has since occurred. In addition to agriculture, the majority of the trade unions were—at that time— opposed to change; so, too, were the majority of the educational interests and the electricity generating industry, which feared for the effect on the morning peak load.
It was thus decided, partly as an experiment and partly to test public reaction, to stop short at an extension of Summer Time, to operate from the end of March to the end of October, seven months. The public having tested this, increased pressure arose during recent years for yet a further extension and indeed for Summer Time all the year round. Further consultations were, therefore, undertaken in the winter of 1966–1967 to bring up to date the views obtained in the earlier inquiry. These consultations covered both the social and economic aspects of a change.
Views were obtained from about 80 organisations, including those representing both sides of industry and agriculture, teachers, local authorities, sporting interests, the police, the Consumer Council and various women's organisations. It is as a result of these consultations that this Measure is being introduced. It was clear that there had been a substantial shift of opinion, with a mounting desire for a change, particularly for social reasons.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Were the consultations in England paralleled by consultations with similar bodies in Scotland?

Mr. Ennals: Yes, indeed. I shall deal deal thoroughly with the consultations in Scotland. There were probably more organisations consulted in Scotland, as I shall mention.
Broadly representative groups of organisations were consulted. I emphasise that not only because of the hon. Gentleman's question but because the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), when we were debating the Summer Time Order last July, suggested that the sole reason for the Government's decision was the commercial advantage it would bring by enabling people in Britain to work to the same time schedule as those on the Continent. This is, I believe, a common view, but it is quite misconceived. It was one factor only—though an important one—in favour of the change. There is no doubt that the change should benefit our commercial transactions with the Continent, and bring solid benefits by way of increased exports to the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. countries. There could hardly be a more important time to undertake this Measure when the battle for exports is at the centre of our country's economic struggle.
We estimate that the gain in business contact hours during the winter would be as much as 20 per cent. The Confederation of British Industry and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce were among those consulted on this aspect, and comments were also offered by the National Export Council and the London Commodity Exchange. The general consensus of opinion was strongly in favour of the change we are now making.
Permanent co-ordination of time between the United Kingdom and Europe will also provide greater convenience in travel and in business arrangements generally. It will be an advantage to the airlines, not only in simplifying the task of preparing time-tables but in harmonising their schedules with the continental operators. It will help the railways in much the same way, and it should be of considerable benefit to the ports, particularly those such as Dover—my constituency—and others dealing with the Continent. I shall have more to say later on the question of road accidents, which is primarily a human and social problem. But it is manifest that transport undertakings in general will benefit from the change, and so—if only marginally—will the tourist industry.
But I have no wish to overpitch the economic arguments. We have found that, considering the whole economic aspect, the advantages and disadvantages are pretty evenly matched. It is a matter of delicate judgment. We cannot dispute that there will be some difficulties, though they are sometimes exaggerated. The outdoor industries—agriculture and construction—will certainly be affected. We believe that there is a tendency to underestimate what can be done through changes in working hours. Farm work itself is changing and mechanisation and modernisation provide more scope now for work in conditions of cold and darkness than was the case even a few years ago. It is perhaps partly for this reason that the opposition of the National Farmers' Union is discernibly less strong than it was in 1960, and it is of significance that the National Union of Agricultural Workers now approves of what we propose.
The effect on the fuel industry, we are advised, will be neutral, except that as regards electricity generation there will be a shift of much of the peak load from

the late afternoon to the morning. In fact, the morning peak may well become larger than the afternoon peak is at present. But this should not now give rise to any significant problems. It certainly did in 1960, but it will not do so now since by next winter there should be ample generating capacity to cover any small excess.

Captain Walter Elliot: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by his reference to the late afternoon peak? What time is he contemplating, six o'clock or four o'clock?

Mr. Ennals: The peak starts at the time when it gets dark and it is clear that if one brings the timing much earlier, there will be a bigger peak in the morning than in the evening, because when people get home from work and children come home from school, they are more likely to come home in the hours when it is light. This is more so as one moves towards February and March and also in October and November.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I am not sure that I understand that part of the hon. Gentleman's observation. Before the equinox the more the hour is put forward the earlier darkness falls. After the equinox the opposite must be true in a sense because of course one gradually gets to a period when on any view there will be light. How can what the hon. Gentleman has just said be true about the period before the equinox?

Mr. Ennals: Certainly during the middle of winter—and people are most concerned about the change during the middle of winter—it is quite clear that we shall be getting up when it is darker and therefore using more electricity in the morning, and there will be less electricity used in the end of the afternoon and in the early evening. That is confirmed by the electricity industry which has been studying this matter.

Captain W. Elliot: Captain W. Elliot rose——

Mr. Ennals: I must proceed. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Speaker's eye and be able to develop his argument.
There was concern about this situation in 1960, but we are now quite satisfied


that there will be ample generating capacity to deal with any small excess. Nor will industries' costs and the average price to the consumer be significantly affected.
Had we relied solely on economic considerations, it would have been less easy to reach the conclusion we have reached. The Government would probably still have concluded that the change was desirable, but the decision would have been fine. This is not solely, however, nor perhaps primarily, an economic issue. There can be few issues which more directly affect every individual in the country, working or retired, in his or her domestic or social habits.
We were surprised in the course of our social review to discover how far the balance of opinion has swung in favour of change. There were no doubt many differing factors contributing to this, but I propose particularly to mention two, about which, it appears, there is still a good deal of misunderstanding, which I would like to remove.
It seems to be fairly commonly believed that the change will increase the danger of road accidents. In fact, taking morning and evening together, it should lead to more travel in daylight and to less in darkness than under the present system, even on the least favourable assumption that the traffic will not adjust itself in any way. There are, of course, other considerations—more ice and fog in the mornings, greater travel weariness in the evenings—but the best expert assessment we have is that the reduction of accidents in the evening will be somewhat greater than any increase in those in the morning.
The Road Research Laboratory's assessment was that, had British Standard Time been in force in 1964, there would have been about 580 extra fatal and serious accidents on weekday working mornings and about 870 fewer such accidents in the evenings. This, together with fewer weekend accidents gives an estimate of 390 fewer fatal and serious accidents. It is the view of R.O.S.P.A., the British Medical Association and the police that the new time will reduce road accidents, and this is a serious consideration.
When we talk about road accidents, we naturally think of our children. The

House will, therefore, be interested to know that all the principal teachers' organisations in England and Wales support the change, as do most of the education authorities. They consider it preferable for our children to go to school rather than come home in the dark, when they tend to loiter and when they may be exposed to a variety of dangers.

Mr. Thomas Steele: My hon. Friend has spoken of education authorities in England and Wales; has he any report to give about Scotland?

Mr. Ennals: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall deal especially with Scotland where, it is recognised, there are serious problems.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Waver-tree): Will the hon. Gentleman point out that local education authorities have the power to shorten luncheon breaks so that children can go home earlier?

Mr. Ennals: This is a matter which has been discussed particularly with education authorities in the North of England and it is under review in Scotland. The changing of the timing of school, whether by shortening the luncheon break or by a slightly later starting, is something to be decided by the local authority. Our discussions with chief education officers in the North have shown that this is something very much in their minds.
Hon. Members will not dispute that the change will have advantages for all outdoor sport, entertainment and leisure time activities, although it is true that in the depths of winter these advantages may be apparent only at weekends. Even so, on the shortest day in Glasgow the sun will not set until a quarter to five instead of, as at present, a quarter to four. This should enable father to take the family for a run in the oar or for a walk after lunch without having to rush back quickly because of the fading light. Daylight up to a quarter to five in Glasgow, and till nearly five o'clock in the South, should be a boon to the housewife and to the old-age pensioner in their afternoon activities; and earlier in the winter, and as the days draw out in February and March, the same benefits


will be enjoyed by many office and factory workers who are deprived of them now.
Opponents of this change are all too prone to concentrate exclusively on the winter solstice and close their eyes to all benefits both then and more particularly in the earlier and later winter months. This, no doubt, is debatable ground which hon. Members will discuss. What I can say, however, is that in England aid Wales the change had clear majority support among every single section of opinion whom we consulted on its social implications—the Trade Union Congress, the local authority associations, the Consumer Council, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the sporting interests, and many others.
In Scotland, where winter daylight is shorter and dawn comes later, opinion was understandably more divided, but we ware surprised at the degree of support there, too. While the local authorities, educational authorities and teachers' organisalions were in general, although by no means unanimously, against the change, the Scottish Trade Union Congress and the Scottish Office of the Confederation of British Industry, were as categorically in favour of it as their English counterparts. So, too, were certain of the women's organisations, such as the Scottish W.R.V.S. and the Townswomen's Guild. What I said earlier about school children must apply particularly in Scotland, but I repeat that any difficulties can almost certainly be reduced by an alteration of school hours.

Mr. James Ramsden: Is the distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw between Scotland and the rest of the country really valid? It depends on the latitude. Things in the North of England are every bit as difficult as things in the South of England. When he talks about opinion in England and Wales, the hon. Gentleman ought really to analyse matters in the North and in the South. It seems to be very material to the argument.

Mr. Ennals: That is absolutely true, and it is also true that the division is not so much a geographical one as occupational. It has been found that business, office and industrial workers in England, Scotland and Wales are in favour of the change but there are greater

doubts among the country folk, the farm folk and those involved in building operations in England or Scotland. Naturally there is a greater sense of concern about this change where the hours of daylight are less.
No one will doubt that we have not just been consulting the wishes of London and the South-East about this. We have consulted those people in Scotland and the North-West. As I indicated earlier, proportionately more bodies were consulted in Scotland than England and Wales. I am told that is not an uncommon practice. I have no wish whatever to discount the geographical considerations, which are most important. Occupational considerations are more important.
A matter which seems to have aroused much interest and some feeling is the name for the new time system. Hon. Members will recollect that when the Government's intention to introduce legislation to bring about this change was announced the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) asked whether further consideration could be given to the name. This was done and over a hundred suggestions were received from hon. Members, the general public, the Press and various organisations They were all carefully considered and there was also consultation with those concerned with astronomy, meteorology, shipping and navigation In the end the choice of British Standard Time has been made There has been some objection to this choice in the Press and in another place when the Bill was first considered This has, it seems, come mainly from the specialists concerned with astronomy, and navigation, on the ground that the name will cause confusion through the specialist and technical meaning which the term "standard time" has acquired.
We have given all due weight to these opinions but it must be remembered that we are not legislating here for specialists but for the general public, the man in the street. There is an evident, general wish, firstly for the word "British" to be in the title. Secondly, the word "Standard", I think the House will agree, indicates clearly and concisely the object of the measure, which is to prescribe the time for general purposes.
There can be no justification for suggesting that in making this choice we are


in any way detracting from the unique world-wide status of Greenwich Mean Time. On the contrary, the special position and uses of Greenwich Mean Time have been preserved in the Bill, as it deals with astronomy, meteorology, navigation and kindred subjects.
It is not, I am sure, necessary with so short and concise a measure to give the House any explanation or resumé of its provisions. I should perhaps mention that Clauses 2 and 3 apply the measure to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, in accordance with their wishes. Since the subject is within their own jurisdiction, they are at the same time given power to replace it by enactments of their own. Our understanding is that none of the territories wishes to do anything different from Great Britain, but certain of them do wish to enact their own legislation.
We are naturally preoccupied at present with the economic condition of the country, but we must not allow ourselves on this account to be distracted from lesser but nevertheless important reforms, such as this. Of course there will be difficulties for some people in this change. No one would try to pretend that this is not so. Parliament can very rarely legislate to please everyone, and the Government believe that for the country as a whole this is a beneficial Measure and that it will find support from the majority of our population. I ask the House to follow the action of those in another place, thereby placing this Measure upon the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I had better announce to the House that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and his hon. Friends. That will not in any way cramp the debate.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If the speech to which we have just listened, glowing and confident as it was throughout, had been the prospectus for a trading company, the hon. Gentleman's Department would have been very much concerned about it. I do not think that one could have discerned from that speech, delivered as I am sure it was in the utmost good faith, that there is deep and widespread doubt, and outright op-

position to the proposition contained in this Bill.
The first question that one asks oneself when faced with a Bill like this is: why has it been brought forward at all? When I put in my notes that the first reason really was what I called the extrapolationist view of progress—that is that all change is progress and that if one has Summer Time for half the year, then to have it the whole year is more progress—I thought that I was being a little bit lawyer-like. Any doubts that I had about that have been entirely dissipated by the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The speech made by his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Stonham in another place included a quotation from Dr. Philpots in 1907 who advocated this. He said:
…it has taken us some sixty years to adopt his idea.
This is accepting, of course, by a simple glide of thought, that this must be progress because someone suggested it and now it was being adopted. Another distinguished supporter of the Bill has described this as:
…an inevitable development of what has taken place over the last sixty years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd Nov., 1967; Vol. 286, c. 1192.]
Today the hon. Gentleman said that the old time system established in 1884— that is enough to damn it—has become less suited to our needs and he described the Bill as the culmination of a long process, and said the time had come for a change.
He finished by calling it a reform. There are all the famous code words which replace thought in a matter like this. The next reason given for this, in spite of all the disclaimers from the hon. Gentleman, is the belief, encouraged by the terms employed and generally held in the corners of some people's minds, that this sort of Bill will produce some extra daylight.
Lord Stonham in another place, quoting this Dr. Philpots, who appears to be the cornerstone of this operation, quoted him as saying that better than Mr. Willett's summer time.
…would be for all Western Europe to adopt what is known as 'middle Europe time'. This would result in giving that part of the world one hour's more daylight during a substantial part of the year…


The right hon. Lady the Minister of State, in the debate upon the Summer Time Order, in July, said:
This extra hour of daylight in the five weeks from February to the end of March…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 2692.]
Therefore, however much people disclaim it, there lurks in the minds of many of them the belief that some extra hours of daylight will result from this operation.
The third reason is what I call the death wish, which is that anything British is due for the ditch, that anything specifically British must be anomalous, insular and, indeed, retrograde, so that Greenwich Mean Time is inevitably due for supersession in the same way as duodecimal systems of measurement. This was epitomised in a quite remarkable utterance by Sir Richard Powell of the Institute of Directors, who said:
We have been out of step for years. It is about time we abandoned this insular attitude and conformed with the rest of Europe.
The fourth reason is the "into Europe" movement—the Common Marketeers. It is true that Lord Stonham, when introducing the Bill, denied this and said:
My Lords, it is not true that the Government's decision to adopt permanent Summer Time has been dictated by what might be termed Common Market considerations.… this is only one factor in the equation, to which due weight has been given, but no more ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd Nov., 1967; Vol. 286, c. 1182–40.]
I will not comment on that, at any rate at present, but I have no doubt that this has been the principal lobby in favour of the Bill.
Then there is the question of business advantage, about which we have heard a good deal, and, in a sense, I am glad that we have. During the Minister's speech, I collected one delightful phrase, which was that there would be a 20 per cent, advantage in business contact hours brought about by the Bill. That is a delightful expression which I should like to unbutton. I wonder what it means. Am I right in thinking that it means nothing other than advantage in telephoning? [Interruption.] I am obliged for that reassurance. It sounds so much more impressive when it is called "business

contact hours". No doubt it has come from America via a business consultant.
The final reason—and this is what the hon. Gentleman leant on more than anything else—concerns the allegation of public support, the great shift of ideas. One shift which there has been is that in 1960 the Government consulted 180 organisations. Last year, they consulted 80, a drop of 100. I wonder whether those were the unfriendly ones. In any case, is it a useful operation to ask organisations questions like this? All sorts of things happen. Such questions are dealt with in the most haphazard way. The answers which I saw given in the Press were just on the lines of the five items which I have just mentioned. Words like "overdue" were used. There were such phrases as, "It is time we got into step with Europe, if we are going into Europe"—and, by the way, we are apparently. "Extra daylight would be useful". "There will be business advantage in telephoning". I have recounted those because they exhaust the motives which have prompted the introduction of the Bill.
The burden of refuting these grounds does not lie on those who oppose the Bill, because we are defending the established system—established in this country and by international agreement. But I will deal with them quite shortly as though the burden lay upon us.
The first—and it is hardly necessary to say it—is that not an extra second of daylight can be produced by any such measure as this. Secondly, in considering progress and the question of being modern, the true analysis is that if we live on a globe and our life is regulated by the apparent movement of the sun across the sky round that globe, we have a problem of computing time which we can resolve in two ways: first, by having a single world time and by doing different things in different parts of the world at the same time; and, secondly, by having time belts so that eight o'clock, for example, has the same general and social meaning everywhere, but clocks change as one goes round the world.
The first is logically possible, but it has always been generally rejected. In a leading article in The Times on 2nd October, 1884—perhaps I can have the attention of the Minister; I suppose that "no" is the answer to that rhetorical question—


when amid the welter of chaos in this matter the nations of the world decided to examine it fundamentally and reach a decision this was said:
…no international standard could be adopted without complete disruption of the ideas which are now universally associated with this or that much o'clock.…It is manifest that each country must still use its own meridian, or some selective meridian within is limits, for the regulation of domestic time".
This view wholly prevailed during the International Prime Meridian Conference which ran through the rest of that month in Washington. No one saw any sense in the clocks striking together all round the world.
On the next question—that of deciding the optimum size of time belt—there was general consensus that time belts one hour or 15 degrees of longitude wide were the best solution, and so, by agreement among virtually all the civilised nations, a system of 24 time belts, 15 degrees wide, based on the Greenwich meridian was recommended. It was adopted by the world and has been used ever since.
I emphasise that the system then adopted was not merely that the time used should be based on Greenwich Time in the sense that it should differ from it by a whole number of hours, but also that the time used should be the time of the appropriate zone. It is from that system that we are, by the Bill, asked formally and permanently to depart. I cannot see that that is progress. It was progress to replace chaos by an ordered and generally agreed system. Is it not retrograde to slip back into anarchy and chaos? If three or four in the regiment fall out of step, is the regiment out of step with them, and should we conform with the renegades; or should not they return to the general and useful system?

Mr. Ennals: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if there has been deviation we have been deviating for 51 years? Has this led to chaos and confusion throughout the last half century?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman has evaded the obvious point. I did not like the partial deviation, but at least it was a seasonal variation from the accepted standard time of the zone. What is

proposed now is something quite different: the total abandonment of zone time and the adoption of zone minus one Central European Time as the proper permanent time of these islands. It is, therefore, a clear departure from the Convention of 1884.
Then, what about the European Community? That is the motive which underlies all this. We are not in it, and we do not seem to be on our way into it. If we were, would it have any relevance? The answer is, "None".
When 15 degree belts of one hour each were agreed, they were agreed by reference to the greatest variation in local apparent noon which could be tolerated without a divorce in social habits from the familiar hours of the clock. That was the test and the criterion internationally agreed, accepted and applied. It was obvious that 15 degree belts would mean that a large country would work by more than one time and that several small countries might use the same time.
When I asked the Home Secretary some time ago why Europe should find difficulty where the United States found none, he replied that it was absurd to compare Europe with a country 3,000 miles wide. I wonder why. Europe is 3,300 miles wide, stretching over 57 degrees of longitude and into five time belts. By a strange coincidence, the United States also extends over 57 degrees of longitude and has four main time belts. Americans seem to manage very well and to do a lot of business with each other, and I think that they would laugh to scorn the proposition that they should all use the same clock time.
The proposal is that Britain should use time appropriate to a meridian which runs east of Berlin and is intended to be convenient for the inhabitants of Warsaw and Belgrade. It is misleading to say that it is the same time as France, because France is already in breach of the system. But France can at least say that she extends to 8½ degrees east and is partly in the Central European Time zone, whereas the United Kingdom lies almost entirely west of the meridian of Greenwich and a very small part of it is actually in the next zone time west. Since that is our geographical position, since we are the fulcrum of the whole system and since there are only a few rogue elephants, with


the rest of the world conforming to it, it is particularly disgraceful for us to abandon our zone time in this way.
How is this extraordinary step justified? We are told that we shall get an extra hour of daylight in the evening, and extra contacts of 20 per cent, with Europe. Let us look at the context of the 20 per cent., first. What does it mean? The executive comes into his office at 10 o'clock, sometimes. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that telephone wires to Paris, Berlin and Milan are humming with important business calls at 9 o'clock, I ask him to accept that he is mistaken. What will happen if we introduce Central European Time in the winter? Does he think that business executives will come in in the dark? What will happen is that offices in the City will not open at 9 o'clock but at 9.30, splitting the difference. They will slide half an hour. The executive will arrive not an hour later, as now, but one and a quarter hours later, catching just one train later than at present. In other words, if it is a gain at all, it will be a gain of 15 minutes.
What is the strength of the argument? Supposing that the kind of people who make international telephone calls come in at 10 o'clock. There is one hour's difference. Let us say that they work from 10 to 5. That gives them seven hours. Is this really a matter of very serious importance when one reflects that a good many people want to telephone the United States of America, where the difference is five hours? If the difference is increased to six hours, then, to adopt the hon. Gentleman's splendid phrase, which I shall never forget, of "business contact hours", does he realise that there will be virtually none between Britain and the United States or, at best, one? When one balances that out, I am not sure that I see very much advantage.
Now I come to the hour at night and the hour in the morning. This is the most fatuous argument ever addressed to the House. Does the hon. Gentleman know that there is frost and sometimes fog and often both together in our winter mornings? Does he know that the hour around sunrise is the worst for both of them? Of course, he does. Why, then, is he proposing that sunrise should be made later? Does he know, for example, that if this Bill comes in, sunrise may be as late as 10 o'clock in Scotland, and not just in Caithness and

Sutherland but in the central Lanarkshire belt running right across the country? As one comes south, it is still very late. Even in the latitude of London it will be at about 9 o'clock.
The hon. Gentleman said that school children will be able to come home in daylight. I do not know what teachers' organisations he has consulted. Perhaps I have a little more immediate experience than the hon. Gentleman. Does he not know that all children under 11 come home at 3.30, in daylight, in the winter months? If the teachers' organisations told him something different from that, they told him nonsense. At present, they come home in daylight and they go to school in daylight.
If the Bill is passed, they will go to school in the dark, and they will come home in daylight, as they do now. There is bound to be an increased danger. The darkness in which they will go to school is the darkness of the morning rush hour. Whether they come home now in the dark or in daylight, it is not in the rush hour, even at 4 o'clock, and, though it might be getting dark in the north of England, it is not the rush hour. They will be going to school in the dark, perhaps in frost and fog, and in the morning rush hour. If that does not lead to more children being killed and injured, I shall be delighted, but astonished.
Let us remember that we had a taste of this during the war, for five years. Particularly during the two cold winters of 1940 and 1944, it was a most disagreeable experience and, even before the war ended, in October, 1945, we abandoned it, and went back to Greenwich time for the winter.
The nature of this operation is very simple. The Government have decided that we ought to get up an hour earlier. They do not want to change the time system, in spite of the fine phrases with which the hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill. They will not change to a world time, or anything like that. They will keep to the time system at present established but, by introducing Central European Time, they hope that everyone will get up an hour earlier and do the things that they do now one hour earlier. My short answer is that it is a lot of nonsense and will not work, because people are regulated in their lives by the sun. In summer, it does not matter, because


there is a lot of elbow room on both sides and time can be pushed round a little. In winter, it will not happen.
Strangely enough, the hon. Gentleman said that when people looked at the difficulties he thought that there was a tendency to under-estimate what can be done by changing hours of work. If this problem is resolved by people changing hours of work, he might as well have saved himself the trouble of introducing the Bill, because he will finish up where he started.
If the Bill goes through—as I am sure it will—everything will just move along. It will take about five years, but it will move along and we can come back to the House and say, "Let us go back to zone time. Everybody will do the same things at the same time, but we will go back to Greenwich Mean Time as before." It is probably the only way in the end in which we could ever get rid of Mr. Willis, which is what I have always wanted to do, and that will be a slight solace. However, the trouble is that in the first few years, if it lasts so long, there will be great hardship and danger brought about by this foolish Bill.
I hope, after one bad winter, that it will go into limbo and be forgotten. If it is not, after a number of people have been killed and injured, we shall drift back to doing things an hour later and the whole thing will be a nullity and can be cancelled.
This is just the sort of Bill that I expect to be brought in by that lot of conscious and purposive planners opposite. It is just about their level and it will finish up, as all their other plans have finished up, as publishers' remainder like the National Plan.
I have no hope that we shall defeat the Government, but I hope that the House will register a protest which will show that at least some hon. Members on this side have sufficient independence of mind to know sugar from sand when they see it.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I have one or two comments to make on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire,

South (Mr. Ronald Bell). I found his speech rather like the curate's egg—good in parts and bad in parts. I agree that there is certainly deep and widespread doubt about this new Measure, but I reject completely that the Bill is being introduced because of a preoccupation with getting into the Common Market. Under the present circumstances that was hardly a justified remark to make about the introduction of the Bill.
I am not opposing the Bill in principle, but I want to draw attention to the fact that it can have very serious effects on the building and construction industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, Minister of State, when introducing the Bill in the other place, said very much the same as my hon. Friend has said this evening. The noble Lord said:
If we consider the whole of the economic field—including effects on productivity and the consumption of fuel and power no less than communications and transport—the general conclusion that emerges is that the advantages and disadvantages of the change will be pretty evenly balanced. We would not dispute, for instance, that it will cause some difficulties to the outdoor industries of agriculture and construction, though less than has often been supposed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd November, 1967; Vol. 286, c. 1184.]

Mr. Ennals: Would my hon. Friend accept that when the noble Lord was saying that it was evenly balanced, he was speaking only of the economic considerations and not the social considerations which, as he said, were by no means evenly balanced?

Mr. Heffer: I have quoted the economic part of his speech as a matter of fact. I agree that in that particular passage he was talking about the economic advantages and disadvantages. The point was that the noble Lord was speaking, as my hon. Friend was this evening, on behalf of the Government.
The difficulties, which were brushed aside, have been much too lightly passed over. It is all very well saying that there will be some difficulties in the building and construction industry without analysing what those difficulties are likely to be. I looked at the speech of the noble Lord in the other place and subsequent speeches supporting the Bill and, I must say, speeches opposing it, but very few of them referred to the construction industry.


There was no real analysis of what was likely to happen in that sphere.
In the first place, during the winter months the building worker begins his work at eight o'clock—I have worked in the building industry—but, as a matter of fact, he cannot begin at eight o'clock in the morning because it is not possible. It is about quarter past eight before he can actually begin work, because it is then just becoming light. If the Bill is brought into operation it will become quarter past nine before the building operative can begin his work. I know the answer will be that light must be provided, that we must ensure that there is s sufficient artificial light provided on building contracts to make certain that the building operative can begin work at eight o'clock.
We are not talking about factories; we are talking about building operations outside. I agree that artificial light can be provided, particularly on the larger contracts, but even on the larger contracts we have to look at the real situation. It would be very difficult to provide sufficient light so that every part of a building could be lit up to give the worker safety in relation to his operations.
If anyone has ever stumbled around at seven storeys high in the middle of winter on a scaffold, he knows that there is not much pleasure in it and there is certainly a great deal of danger involved.
I have worked in the building industry under artificial light when we have at times been engaged on contracts half way through the night trying to get work done by a certain time. The point is that although one might be able to light up a ladder and parts of a scaffold, there is the danger of falling bricks and tools on a building site which can become much more dangerous at night. During the day an operative can see them coming and take the necessary action to get out of the way fairly sharply. This cannot happen at night or during periods of darkness. Therefore, the safety factor is much more serious in the dark than it can possibly be during the light hours.

Mr. John M. Temple: The hon. Member has been talking about the safety factor. Would not he care to add that the coldest hour is fie hour before drawn and this proposal

will add to the frost dangers that the building workers will face?

Mr. Heffer: This is perfectly true.
I want to draw attention to something else concerning artificial light. I accept that we can make certain that a large contractor has sufficient artificial light on his jobs. But what about the small builder? This was a point made by my hon. Friend. He said that industrial costs will not be significantly affected. I am sure that is true in most industries, but it is not true in the building industry, because the provision of artificial lighting and other things concerning safety and so on will put up the cost. The small builder would, therefore, find it very difficult on small contracts to provide sufficient light.
What about house repair work? The chap at the end of the street who puts the tiles back on people's houses after a storm, does a little bit of plumbing for them, and so on, will find it very difficult to provide the sort of lighting that will be required.
The difficulty that is likely to arise in the building industry is that some of the workers will be able to work from 8 o'clock, provided that there is sufficient artificial lighting, while others will not be able to start work then. It will mean building operatives starting work at different times, with all the difficulties about national agreements that this is likely to cause.
There is another factor which we must consider. If a number of building operatives go to work at 9 o'clock, it will mean that they will finish work an hour later than they do now. They will have to go to work at the same time as office workers, which will make the roads even more congested at that hour of the day than they are now, and they will return home under similar conditions.
What about the building operative who will get home an hour later than he does now? Many building workers travel long distances to their place of employment. I remember having to travel for about an hour and a quarter each way, morning and evening, which meant that I spent between two and a half and three hours travelling every day. If a worker finishes work at 6 o'clock, and if he has a long journey, he may get home at about 7.30


This is the wrong end of the day for him for leisure purposes. He does not want to spend an extra hour in bed in the morning. He wants to have an extra hour at home in the evening with his family. One must consider, too, the delivery of materials for the building industry. Great efforts are being made to get materials delivered first thing in the morning so that work can begin immediately. If work is not to begin until 9 o'clock, this factor, too, will help to increase congestion on the roads.
Although the majority of opinion is in favour of a change, and I agree that it will be beneficial from a commercial point of view, I think that there are other factors which must be considered. I thought that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South, who has just left the Chamber, was an indictment of the executives in industry. If they are concerned about getting orders from Europe, they should get up a little earlier and make their telephone calls a little earlier. They do not have to go to work at 10.30 They can get up at 7 o'clock, the hour at which most workers set off to work.

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend was saying that at all. He said that they would telephone at 11 o'clock, and get the orders just the same.

Mr. Heffer: It would be better if they made their telephone calls earlier than that, because we might then have a better export record than we have now. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is a serious one.
This is a good Bill in the sense that it will be beneficial economically, but there are real difficulties which have to be faced. I have been in touch with representatives of the N.F.B.T.O. and the employers. Discussions are going on about this matter. I suggest that the Bill should be operated for a trial period. Let us see precisely what happens. Let us see whether the difficulties which will arise in building and agriculture can be overcome. If they can be, all well and good.

Sir Spencer Summers: Has the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that this system was tried during the war,

and that despite the experience then it was decided to abandon it?

Mr. Heffer: I do not think that wartime experience is necessarily the same as that which we would have now. Let us have the Bill for a trial period. Let us see whether the genuine difficulties, not the artificial ones which have been put forward today, can be overcome. If they can be, the case for the Bill will have been proved, and we can go on from there. If they cannot be, the Bill can be dropped, and we can revert to the present system.
My hon. Friend said that he thought road accidents would be reduced. It is very easy to quote figures to prove anything. My hon. Friend may be 100 per cent, right, I do not know, but I do know that if building operatives begin work in the dark great difficulties will arise. As the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) said, the hour before sunrise is the worst hour of the day, and there will be an increase in the number of accidents in the building industry. The present level of accidents is scandalous enough. There are far more than there ought to be, and this is one of the real problems in the industry. Road accidents may decrease, although I doubt it, but I am convinced that accidents in the building industry will increase unless there are many more safeguards than there are at the moment.
I ask my hon. Friend to take note of the serious points that I have raised. I have not raised them frivolously. I have raised them because I am an ex-building operative, and in this sense I must declare an interest in the matter. I am concerned about the lives of building operatives, and the conditions under which they work. I am sure that they will be seriously affected once the Bill comes into operation.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: A number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I shall therefore try to keep my speech short and, I hope, to the point.
I listened with great interest and attention to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said about the problems of the building industry. I would like in the first part of my speech to follow what he said by explaining


some of the difficulties which will arise in other industries where people have to work out of doors, and of which I have personal experience.
The Minister made it clear, and repeated it both on his own account and, as it were, quoting his noble Friend in another place, that economically the pluses and minuses of this operation were closely balanced. If this is so, I find it difficult to understand why the C.B.I, and ether people are wildly in favour of it, because if they are equally balanced one might have thought that their view was equally balanced, too.
But whether that is so or not, the Minister said that it was not so much a difference between one part of the country and another as between one kind of worker and another. He explained that the people who were most in favour of this change were office workers. God bless them. I do not mind in the least if they find this convenient, because they have the easiest life in the world. I am prepared to admit that they sometimes travel in crowded trains, but, generally, they move from warm homes to warm offices which are provided with electric lighting and all modern conveniences and it does not matter very much to them whether they start at 5 o'clock in the morning or 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Their working conditions are level, modern and easy.
But the people who matter in an affair of this sort are those whose conditions are totally different because working and travelling circumstances of that kind cannot be provided for them. The hon. Member for Walton spoke of building operatives. I shall say something about farm workers and people who work in forests, quarries, fishing and so on. They form a not inconsiderable proportion of our working community, and, what is more, they are a class of person whom it is becoming harder and harder to keep in the countryside because working conditions in offices are so much easier and more attractive.
If this Government stay in power much longer, before many years have passed 90 per cent, of the population will be in the Civil Service, but no one thinks that that would be an altogether desirable end. If Britain is to be a viable economic unit, we must make conditions

reasonably attractive for those who have to work outside. Many shipyards nowadays have far more modern conditions than they had at one time, but a great deal of work still has to be done on a ship outside, and I am sure that much the same picture is to be found in shipbuilding as the hon. Gentleman described in the building industry.
Perhaps, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, in a year or two everyone will shift an hour and we shall be back where we started. If so, there is no earthly point in enacting this Bill. But, during the period while that is happening, those who cannot start work at the right time because of the dark hours—workers in forestry, quarrying, agriculture, building and outside work in shipyards—will inevitably finish an hour after everyone else, the office workers, civil servants, and so on have got home. Moreover, as the hon. Gentleman said, many such people have to travel considerable distances to work. As a consequence, they will be an hour late for a good many leisure recreations, television, the cinema or whatever it may be, because such recreations or entertainments are organised to suit the great majority of people. As the Minister said, the great majority are office workers, and they want the change.
In my view, the Government are being stupid and unfair to a very large and important section of the community who already have a harder life than do the office workers who favour the change.
The Minister assured the House that the Government had consultations with as many people as possible, and, towards the end of his speech, he told us that, when the consultations took place in Scotland, a great many more were against the change. He was, naturally, talking of organisations of many kinds. I can tell him that the great bulk of people in Scotland do not even know that it is proposed to make the change, but, when they are told, they do not want it. I have not come across a single person yet who is in favour of it. Perhaps I move in circles rather different from those familiar to the Minister and I talk rather more easily to people in the countryside than he does. But I cannot find anyone who wants the change once he is told


what the Government intend to do; and in any case, as I have said, the vast majority have no idea that the Government have it in mind.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the National Farmers' Union of Scotland a decided policy on it?

Mr. Noble: I would think that extremely doubtful, but, if it has, I suspect that it is almost solidly against, particularly in those parts of Scotland rather different from the areas to which the Minister referred, where livestock is the main product, not arable farming. In arable farming, one can have lights on tractors and one can avoid some of the difficulties if one wishes.
To return to my main theme, in Scotland as a whole we have a much more serious problem than in England south of the Wash. I include a good deal of the north of England when I speak of our problem in having less daylight. Furthermore, we have to travel a great deal further for almost everything than in necessary in England because the distances are far greater. Last week, a Minister told us that the various provisions of the Government's new transport policy were entirely satisfactory for the bulk of the country. Today, we have a Minister saying that total darkness in Scotland till ten o'clock, and in some places till 11 o'clock, is entirely satisfactory to the rest of the country. I assure him that it is not entirely satisfactory to those of us who live in Scotland. It will not be entirely satisfactory, whether this change is tried for one year, as the hon. Member for Walton suggested, for six months, for three months, or for any time the Minister likes.
I am certain that this proposal will be unpopular. It will work against the best interests of Scotland. In a matter of this sort, if the English south of the Wash want it, let them have their own time, and let us keep ours.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Brian Parkyn: I have been most interested in hearing some of the arguments used in the debate, particularly those used by the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). With at least two of the hon. and learned Gentleman's

arguments I agree. First, we must not believe that everything that is English is, therefore, wrong and we must automatically conform with other countries. I agree with that very strongly. I am a duodecimalist. I agree also that, after a time, we may well wish to move right away from the idea of having time zones and decide to adopt one time throughout the world.
I say that for this reason. Whenever one travels east or west long distances by air, and one has to do a good deal of it, as I have during the past 20 years, one soon becomes accustomed to not changing one's watch. One finds oneself very muddled if one constantly changes one's watch forward or back two or three hours. One does not know where one is or when breakfast time or lunch time was. One tends to leave the watch alone so that one is living according to one's own time, whatever the local time may be. I suspect that, as more people travel in that way, we shall come round more to the idea of having one time throughout the world, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.
I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, however, when he argues that, in due course, if we have the proposed new standard time, in common with Western Europe, people will adjust themselves in various occupations until, in the end, things go back to where they were. Some industries and occupations will adjust themselves, but this has been true in other countries —countries where one finds that people live lives not conditioned to the sun time in the same way as our lives are conditioned. There are variations, and they provide some of the diversity one finds.
I sympathise with the views so strongly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I appreciate his great experience of the building industry, but it does not seem to me to be a particularly serious draw back if, with this new legislation, the building industry decided to change its hours. It does not seem to alter the argument if the building industry changes its hours or if the schools change their hours to obviate the problem presented by dark mornings——

Mr. Ronald Bell: The suggestion is that schools should change their hours


so that the children can go to school in the daylight, but how does the working mother carry out that operation? If she has to go to work an hour earlier in the darkness, she cannot take her child to school an hour later in daylight.

Mr. Parkyn: That is a very fair point, end I do not know the answer to it. There may well be some adjustment all the way through.
The overwhelming reason for making this change is the vast volume of traffic and of people between this country and Western Europe. There is a vast traffic every day, with people going backwards and forwards all the time. The traffic is not only in people but in telephones. Anybody involved in this traffic, either as a person seeing people, or with telephones, will be greatly affected and benefited by this move. Even if everyone else were to adjust themselves back to where we are at present, the Measure would be well worth while just for that kind of people and for those greatly concerned with industry. That is why it is supported by a good deal of those in industry. It will benefit them a great deal.
My one concern with the Bill is the name, and here I associate myself with all the able, learned and eminent people who have raised the same point. I can only assume that the name "British Standard Time" was cooked up in order to conform with B.S.T.—British Summer Time—in order to preserve the same initials.
I cannot understand why my hon. Friend should say that, somehow, the word "British" should come into the tide. It is confusing and it will lead to confusion. The nation of Newton, Hadley, Hadley, Hooke, and John Harrison, the nation which almost invented longitude and time measurement, must be very careful not just to be traditionalist but to ensure that the name we use is not specifically tied to England. As the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) pointed out, this Measure quite clearly places us out of our agreed time zone. The reference should be to European Time, West European Time, or something like that. The word "British" should not be in the title.
I want to refer to the Republic of Ireland, because those who have stood on the West Clare coast in the summer time and have watched the sun setting at about midnight must understand how dark it will be in the morning if the Republic of Ireland adopts a similar Measure. I feel, again, that because of the vast amount of traffic between the Republic and this country it would be unwise for the Government to consider going ahead with the Measure—and, I think, unfair in these days of internationalism—without considering the matter with the Government of the Republic. I would hope that the Government of the Republic would also adopt this change, but I should like an assurance that our Government have first sought the views of the Government of the Republic of Ireland on a Measure of this kind.

8.34 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: One cannot make a bad Bill better by giving it a better name, nor do I think it a redeeming feature that the Measure is to come into operation on my birthday. We are told that there is very little argument one way or the other on the economic side but that there is overwhelming advantage on the social side. I do not believe either statement. We have heard some very cogent arguments about how the Bill will affect the building industry, and if the facts are as revealed, and I am certain that what has been said is based on sound judgment and experience, the change must have a bad effect on the output of the building industry. It will affect accidents and supervision. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) told us about those who work outside. I do not believe that all concerned with farming, be it arable or livestock, will start an hour later and end the day an hour later to overcome the Government's mismanagement. People will not want a different day's schedule, just because they happen to work out of doors, to that of the rest of the community who might live in the next cottage or house, but work in a town.
As a result, there will be anything up to an hour in the morning when those concerned with agriculture cannot do as much as they have been doing. I sought out some information to show what, on average, would be the time of sunrise in


London in each of the four winter months, November, December, January and February. It works out as follows: November, 8.20; December, 9 o'clock; January, 8.55; February, 8.15. Those affected—not by the lighting up time, which, except for a very few minutes, is the same in Scotland as in England, and heaven knows why—know that those times will be anything up to 45 minutes or more later in Scotland than they are in London.
Indeed, if the Government had wanted to introduce a Bill which would encourage Scottish Nationalism, they could not have devised one which was more likely to do so and to lead to their insisting that arrangements for Scots should be made by Scots, not leaving such matters to Westminster——

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.

Sir S. Summers: We are told, among other things, that the Road Research Laboratory is confident that as many people would not have been killed in 1964 if this timetable proposed in the Bill had been in force. I think this is absolute nonsense. I say that with some feeling, having spent many hours over the last few months investigating the Road Research Laboratory. When I find, for instance, that by improved traffic arrangements, so many million pounds could be saved for the nation and inquire why, I discover that the calculation is based on the proposition that a man's time is worth 18 shillings an hour. This saving of so many hours by speeding up so many vehicles an hour to something rather faster is translated into several millions of pounds on the assumption that every hour saved is calculated at 18 shillings.
The question is, what are people going to do with the time saved? Many will not be able to put it to any good use. Thus, I have no faith in the assertion that fewer lives will be lost because of some mythical calculation based on an unknown formula of the Road Research Laboratory.
In dealing with this matter on a supposedly scientific basis, I am reminded of an incident from the days of steel control during the war. A departmental manager concerned with a particular pro-

duct presented the steel controller with the figures upon which a rise in price should be based. The controller said, "I am very busy: what do they show?" He replied, "They show that they deserve £1 a ton increase in price." The controller said, "I have no time to see the figures. Give them 10 shillings." When it all came out in the wash, it was clear that 10 shillings was too much.
Thus, it is possible to be far too scientific in arriving at solutions which require a great deal more common sense than is sometimes applied to them. Now we are told that this change is going to make it easier for travel agents and others to compile schedules, because they will no longer have to allow for the fact that the time in this country differs from that in Europe. If the Government cannot find better arguments than that in support of the Bill, they should withdraw it. The truth of the matter is that the Government do not understand the countryside and its problems.
Reference has been made to the fact that schoolchildren will be going to school in the dark. I am certain that many mothers will be extremely concerned at the risk to their children. I admit that I have had little or no correspondence on the subject, no doubt because the vast majority of people have no idea of what is planned and what will be the consequences of the Bill. However, when they find out, hon. Members who have not taken part in the debate and who have not pointed out the risks and difficulties inherent in the Bill will be blamed for not giving adequate warning at the appropriate time.
At present we have 21 weeks of natural time and 31 weeks of artificial time.

Mr. Willis: It is all artificial.

Sir S. Summers: If the right hon. Gentleman likes to think of working by the sun artificial, he is welcome to do so. At present we have 21 weeks in accordance with Greenwich Mean Time and 31 weeks of artificial time. It may be that the dividing line between these two arrangements could, with advantage, be changed, so that there were fewer weeks in the winter. I should have thought that four months were ample in which to go by the sun and eight months to go by an artificial hour's difference. This would mean instead of changing the clock in


March change it at the end of February, and then there would be only November, December, January and February when Greenwich Mean Time applied.
I am sure that when experience of the Bill comes to be felt next winter there will be far more opposition to the Measure than now exists. When the Minister tells us that the inquiries made in 1960 from various organisations produced relatively little enthusiasm, while six years later there was a great deal more enthusiasm, I strongly suspect that what accounted for that difference was the fact that many people who remembered the experience of this during the war no longer took part in the latter discussions or thought that they were worth-while.
I believe this proposal to be a profound mistake. The right answer would be to reduce the period during which Greenwich Mean Time operates and, if given an opportunity, I shall vote against the Bill.

8 43 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am in rather a dilemma about the Bill because of the different arguments that have been adduced from either side of the House. I hope that we will get a clear statement from a Scottish Minister to show exactly how the Measure is likely to affect Scotland.
I am reminded in this discussion of what happened to a Russian friend of mine, Mr. Samuel Marshak, the translator of the poems of Robert Burns into the Russian language. Hon. Members who know the Russian language will be aware that there is no definite article in Russian. My friend, when a student in London, once found himself in Hyde Park without a watch and wanting to know the time. He stopped a nice gentleman coming towards him and asked, "What is time?" The gentleman replied, "Young man, you have asked me a profound philosophical question", and passed by. I rather suspect that some of us have thought that there is an element of philosophical disquisition in all this.
The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), to whom we always listen with interest on these occasions, said that there had not been a great deal of lobbying or interest in the Bill and he mentioned that the Scottish N.F.U. had, as

far as he was aware, taken no interest in the Measure.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member should not say that. My right hon. Friend certainly did not say that. What he said was that, without being certain, he thought the National Farmers' Union was strongly against it.

Mr. Hughes: I put the definite question to the right hon. Gentleman. I always listen to him on questions of farming because he is a farmer in Argyllshire, across the Firth of Clyde from the constituency which I represent. I put the definite question, has the National Farmers' Union a policy on this? He said he did not know whether it had or had not. If the National Farmers' Union of Scotland has not an opinion or does not take a definite line on this, I am rather surprised because it has very definite opinions, ideas and policies about everything under the sun.
I cannot remember getting any request from the National Farmers' Union in Scotland to take a particular line on this question, but I represent other sections of workers and I wonder how this change may affect them. How is it likely to affect the miners? I keep very closely in touch with the National Union of Mineworkers of Scotland. They are very assiduous in attending to everything connected with the work of miners. I have not heard an argument about miners similar to the one about the building industry on which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spent so much time. I wish to know from the Minister the policy of the National Union of Mineworkers and of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on this matter.

Mr. George Willis: And of the National Union of Farmers.

Mr. Hughes: And of the N.F.U. If the proposal is to have a great effect on our life, I should like to be informed. So many of the miners may be so accustomed to working in darkness that probably some of them think it will not affect them in any way.
I am an open-minded person. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) asked why this question could not be discussed in Scotland. Why


should it not be discussed in Scottish Grand Committee? Then we could have the views of these organisations. I am an agnostic in this matter. I should be convinced by any person who could state authoritatively and definitely the point of view of Scottish organisations on this issue.

8.47 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: First as to the name; if we are to have a change to Central European time we should call a spade a spade and call it Central European time. We are adding to the nomenclature. It is complicated enough for laymen. I see no point in using a misleading term. It is just as misleading as calling Scotland England, which has even happened in this debate once already.
The present arrangements are better than the proposals. The proposals mean that for five months, from October to March, it will be dark in the morning instead of at night. I do not think we need sound out many people. It is a perfectly simple proposition. Dawn is later in Scotland. It will not break in some parts of Scotland until 10 a.m. I do not want to repeat all the points about children going to school; they have been made already. I agree with those who have made those points.
I want to make some additional points. First, I predict, basing my prediction on common sense and on observation, that it is against nature to get up in the dark. It is hard enough to get up, anyway. There will be a drop in attendance at work. Many people in business have predicted this to me. Time will tell.
Secondly, it is dangerous to tamper with daylight, because it affects people's character and their cheerfulness. Things are reasonably well arranged as they are. The Bill will make no improvement. Change is not necessarily improvement.
On the question of road accidents, on many winter evenings there is ice, which thaws in daylight hours. In many parts of Scotland where it is very cold for much of the winter, there will be many more road accidents. I base that prediction on a common-sense premise. Did the Road Research Laboratory give overall statistics for the United Kingdom, or did it separate its predictions relating to Scotland? Did the police give overall statis-

tics? Policemen to whom I have spoken have not favoured this change. Are the medical statistics overall statistics, or have they been separated for Scotland so that we in Scotland can judge the separate points of view?
I have received 52 letters against the Bill from individuals in Scotland. They have been mostly from the north, from the Highland line upwards. Many letter have been from schoolteachers and from parents. No one to whom I have spoken in my constituency or in Glasgow favours this proposition. Teachers, parents and children in Scotland will not benefit from the Bill. Farmers, of whom there are a few in my constituency, tell me that cows just will not understand Central European time. Agriculture is the largest employer of labour in Scotland. It is vitally important, because it can produce Scotland's basic foodstuffs.
We have already had a full explanation of the effect on the building trade. There is a national housing emergency in Scotland. We now have a disaster. Building is vitally important. Nothing should be done to prejudice it at this time. When other gales come in February and March, as they usually do, I fear that many people may lose their lives in crumbling tenements.
I have read that the C.B.I. favours this change because it is in favour of conformity. I see no future in conformity for its own sake. Italy does not conform. She has altered her time to two hours ahead. Finland does not conform, because she has Eastern European time.
I have read that the view of the trade unions is based partly on two points—first, that there would be extra daylight for returning from work in the evening. They take no account of the situation in Scotland, where many people will inevitably return in the dark, anyway. They take no account of shifts. I do not believe that this is a sensible proposition applied to Scotland. The trade unions' second reason concerned sports facilities. In Scotland in winter football matches tend to be held on Saturday afternoons. If they are held mid-week, the grounds are floodlit.
The Bill may fit the needs of some parts of England. That is not so much my concern. I believe that the majority of people in Scotland are against it, or


would be against it if they knew about it. We are in a different geographical position. We are further north and west. Our dawn comes later. Greenwich is already too far east for us, and now we are proceeding to go further east than ever. We already have an economic twilight, please do not put us into a physical one for five months of the year as well.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I have reflected upon some of the contributions to the Bill and I have made my own estimates of the requirements of modern times. I do not think that something should be sanctified simply because it has been in existence for a long time. Naturally this Measure will require a great deal of adjustment. As an industrial worker for many years I know that men have got up in the dark and have worked in the steel works all their lives. This has happened for the last 500 years.
The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) instanced shipbuilders. We now have the introduction of the three-shift system within the shipbuilding industry, and this has shown that people are able to adjust to changes in their working lives. I can see the point about the concern over children and the inconvenience that may be caused through there being longer hours of darkness in school assembly or in the evening. I have seen this myself recently in the area where I lived and felt concerned about the extension.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill deals with:
… the construction of any document referring to a point of time in connection with any of those purposes".
It is intriguing to look at certain legal points in such documents. Let me give an illustration of what can happen. There is a house for sale, at £600 to start with, in order to attract a large audience. One makes one's bid at one minute past 11— which time is this? Is it British Mean Time or British Standard Time? I notice hon. Members opposite frowning. I know of at least three sales that have taken place when, because one bidder was in time, the auctioneer had to accept the bid although he was expecting three times the price offered in that first bid. I am simply illustrating some of the intriguing

facets. The documents speaks of international usage. I should be interested to have an interpretation of such matters. How will this affect me when I go on my annual trip to Sothebys and bid for a Goya? I support the Bill generally, accepting that there have to be adjustments in the community.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: One thing that we have missed in this debate was an announcement by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) during her speech as to what will be her party's policy on this Bill. I am sorry that she has left the Chamber now. We will possibly not know for some time what the policy will be. At the same time I was extremely interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) and his comments on Goyas and what Goya could do with light. It seems that the Government in bringing this Measure forward have been literally casting around in the dark, looking for light. The Government seem to think that merely altering the time of the clock will in some way conjure up an extra hour. If there is any doubt, let me tell them that that is simply not so.
They have told us that many people when questioned said that they were in favour of the introduction of this legislation, but what the Government have not told us is what prompted them to bring it forward in the first place. To give him his due, the Under-Secretary made out a case, but he made it out on all the wrong grounds. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, the next stage will be a shift in working hours so that next year the Government will be introducing a Bill to make Double Summer Time the order of the day. I do not know where this will end.
Summer time, as George Gershwin said, is the time when livin' is easy. The mere fact that we are to get this change of time will not making the livin' any easier for the farmer or farm worker, and it is already a fact that the majority of farmers, certainly in the North of Scotland, start their work in darkness for four if not five months of the year. Such is the climate and such is the farming economy up there that in the course of time they have become adapted to starting work in the dark.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said, the animals which they look after already form a large part of the economy and it will be well nigh impossible for farmers to operate in an economic and proper manner of animal husbandry if the Bill goes forward. It is impossible to alter the farming economy any further. The Under-Secretary spoke of mechanisation and modernisation making the change easier for farming, but I do not agree, if for no other reason than that the Bill will put up agricultural costs, and they are already very high.
He mentioned Glasgow and all his emphasis was on the result of the Bill on the central belt of Scotland. Much of Scotland's population lives a great deal further north. The hon. Gentleman spoke of children going to school in the dark, but in my constituency they already do, for they have to leave for school at 7.30. The Bill will make things even worse. Even now in February and March the children go to school in twilight and when the Bill goes through, for at least six months of the year they will have to go to school in complete darkness. The hon. Gentleman said that the teachers were consulted. All the teachers with whom I have discussed the subject have been absolutely opposed to the Bill. I agree that the ideal answer would be time zones for North and South, but in a small island like this we obviously cannot go in for things of that sort.
The hon. Gentleman said that the islands of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man would be given power to make their own enactments if they so desired. I was under the impression that this House of Commons had no power whatever to legislate for Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man. It is a grave effrontery to them to be told that they can make enactments if they like but must otherwise abide by the enactments of this House. I am sure that that is wrong, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that when he replies.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. George Willis: I have listened to the debate to try to make up my mind on the merits or demerits of the Bill. Having heard a great deal of the criticism of it, I have not

been persuaded. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) has just spoken of the difficulties it will create in farming. I cannot follow that argument. You do exactly the same things at exactly the same period of the day. All that is different is the time on your watch. This already happens in agriculture during summer time, and where I come from in Norfolk it was common for people not to change their clocks.

Mr. John Farr: May I put it in the simplest possible way to assist the right hon. Gentleman? The point is that in the early winter mornings you go out to look for a herd of cattle or a flock of sheep and you cannot see them in the dark. Your men go wandering all around the fields, or the hills in Scotland, with flashlights, and still cannot find them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will use the traditional form of address.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is not telling me anything about agriculture or about Scotland. He is apparently very ignorant of Scotland. As his hon. Friend said, such work is already done in the dark in the north of Scotland, where darkness extends in the middle of winter from about ten in the morning to three in the afternoon—[Laughter.]—or rather, the other way around, from three in the afternoon until ten in the morning. The hon. Member for Banff knows that quite well. Even in Edinburgh darkness extends from 4 p.m. until 9 a.m. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman says does not really apply. Farmers are already faced with these difficulties. Where the farmer's difficulties arise is not so much in connection with running his farm but in trying, when he must, to fit his life in with that of people in the community who are acting at different hours.
Having spent a considerable time in Norfolk, I appreciate the difficulties. I well remember when Summer Time was first introduced, the problems when one went to the market town. Probably one had not bothered to change one's clock and one found that the time was different in the town. But Summer Time makes no difference to the operation of farming nor does it make a great deal of


difference to many of industry's operations. In Scotland, men already start work in the dark, leaving home at seven and half-past seven in the morning. In Edinburgh it is dark until 8.30 or 9 a.m. in the winter, so that the change does not make a great deal of difference there either. People will have an hour longer of darkness at that end of the day, but as we pass from winter to summer they have the benefit of the lighter hours earlier in the year. That is the point which nobody has made. As we pass from one to the other, so we get the benefit of the longer period of light earlier. The school children will be coming home in daylight much earlier I than they would have been coming home if the Bill had not been introduced.
There has been a considerable amount of opposition for opposition's sake. I can understand this, because we are interfering with long-established personal habits. We get used to getting up at a certain time, whether it is light or not light. We do not like changing our habits. We do not like to be told that we shall have a longer period of darkness in the morning and perhaps a little longer period of light at night. This is an established tradition and we do not like departing from it.
What I should like to know is the opinion of all the representative bodies in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Against.

Mr. Willis: I have not had a single letter in my constituency about the Bill. I have not received one representation from any organisation about the Bill. I do not think that many people in Scotland know that we are discussing it tonight. But I should like to know from the Government more definitely—I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said something about this—the opinions of the representative organisations in Scotland. Are they in favour of it? Are they clamouring for it? [Interruption.] I do not think that I shall win or lose a single vote at the next election because of the Bill. Are those organisations which are not opposed to the Bill clamouring for it? Is anybody demanding it?

Mr. Clark Hutchison: No.

Mr. Willis: I am asking the Government, not the hon. Gentleman. I have great respect for him, but when I ask about the representations which have been made I address my question to the Government and not to him. I have heard no demand for any alteration. Neither have I heard a very strong case against the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I remain an agnostic in this matter. I am still waiting to be persuaded one way or the other. None of the arguments adduced seems to be very convincing. I should like to hear something much more convincing to enable me to make up my mind about the Bill.

9.13 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I shall be brief as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
There is one rather surprising thing about the Bill. Until the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) spoke, nobody, apart from the Under-Secretary of State, was in favour of the Bill. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of it.

Mr. Willis: I said that my mind was still to be made up. But the hon. Gentleman should not forget my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small): he was in favour of it.

Sir R. Russell: The opinion of the House does not seem to reflect the opinion which the Under-Secretary of State said was held in the country.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State some questions about the list of organisations which he said were consulted by the Home Office before the Bill was produced. I have the list before me—at least, the list given to me by the former Home Secretary in answer to a Question on 30th June. There are about 75 of them. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked about Scottish organisations. I should like to ask about the building trade organisations as building was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). There are four of them in the list. They are the Federation of Associations of Civil Engineering Contractors, the National Federation of


Building Trade Employers, the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, and the Winter Building Advisory Committee. I wonder what that Committee thought of it, in particular, but I should like to know what all those organisations thought.
In his answer, the Home Secretary said:
The results showed a clear preponderance in favour of the change."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 145.]
Could we be told what "a clear preponderance" means? There are 75 organisations listed, and presumably the Government know those who were for, those who were against and, possibly, those who would not express any opinion or who were divided.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked what was the real motive behind the Bill and who wanted it. I echo that question. I cannot help feeling that there is a sort of Common Market motive behind it, that we want to align ourselves with Europe because we hope to go in, although the hope is slender at the moment.
Mention has been made of telephone traffic, but the proportion of telephone traffic with Europe of all such traffic in the country is exactly 0·11 per cent. I obtained that figure from an answer given by the Postmaster-General on 30th June, when he said that 87 per cent, of the telephone calls made in the country were local, 12·59 per cent, were inland trunk calls, 0·11 per cent, were Continental, and 0·01 per cent, were calls overseas outside Europe. If we are legislating for European telephone calls, they represent a very small proportion of the total number of calls made.
Less than 30 per cent, of our overseas trade is with Europe, and I doubt whether all of that is done by telephone. After all, we have been trading with Europe for years, long before there were such things as continental telephone calls at the price now possible as a result of subscriber trunk dialling. In any event, a business man who has to make a call to France before 9 o'clock in the morning, if he has not left home by that time, can always make the call from his home. Most executives likely to make such telephone calls will have telephones

in their homes. I am sure there is a way of getting round the problem without submitting the whole country to inconvenience. I am unconvinced by the arguments in favour of the Bill, and I hope that the House will reject it.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartle-pools): The Bill is tremendously important. It will affect the lives of many millions of people. It will affect the habits of a great range of workers and the conduct of our business in the ports, the airline systems, our internal transport systems, and so on. It is possible that it will raise a fairly interesting and, at this stage, perhaps vexing question about the effects upon the generating industry.
The people must accept that it means a very serious change for many of them in their habits and working lives. Nevertheless, we have gained sufficient experience over the years, including the war years and those immediately following, to know the remarkable degree of adaptability of people and that certain benefits flowed from the establishment of Summer Time.
Having said that, it is not important for our people whether the proposed time is known as British Standard Time or Western European Time. The name is irrelevant. Once the proposal becomes an Act of Parliament, what I have said will apply, and it is then that people will do the thinking.
During the course of this debate hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked questions about who has been consulted, to what kind of conclusions they have come, and what is the base upon which the Government have decided to bring the Bill before the House.
In the winter of 1966 some 80 organisations—22 of them in Scotland—were asked to consider this matter. I understand that it has been assesed—and on such a matter I am open to correction—that the range of opinion on this subject then weighed more favourably towards the proposition of this standard time than had persisted in 1960. It was rather interesting to observe that the National Union of Agricultural Workers approved the proposition and that the opposition of the National Farmers' Union was noticeably less than it had been hitherto. It was also interest-


ing to note that the Scottish Trades Union Congress was in favour of the proposition and that the Trades Union Congress here was also strongly in favour of it, as was the Confederation of British Industries.
In another place it was stated:
And even in Scotland, where, as is understandable, opinion was a great deal more divided than South of the Border, we were surprised at the considerable degree of support to be found.
Here, I think, comes an important rider:
The local and education authorities in Scotland were generally opposed, though not all of them were; and, as I have just mentioned, the Scottish Trades Union Congress were as much in favour as their English colleagues."—OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd November, 1967; Vol. 286, c. 1186.]
The question now before the House must be: to what extent can we place weight upon this evidence? I suggest that we should take great care about the weight we presume to place upon this kind of evidence. I recall being present at a meeting when I presume the members were discussing questions in connection with this survey, which was the basic cause, as I understand, of the Government favourably bringing forward this Bill. When I observed the members discussing it, to my great surprise I found two matters which worried me. First, they seemed to have very little concern about the consequences of what they were saying; and, secondly, they did not seem to be understanding what they were talking about.
It is only after a Bill like this gets its Second Reading that the country as a whole becomes more sharply concerned with the implications of it. Therefore, I suggest that the Government must not place too much weight upon this survey. They must take into account the concern of the House, because it is at this point that the first impulse of proper, careful scrutiny is being seen to work which is the preliminary of a more national expression of opinion. If that be the case, one of the things I would have liked in the Bill would have been some indication of a temporary measure. There is a proviso here, that a temporary measure will create complications for other people. Diarists and publicists involved with matters relating to calendar and time might find some difficulty on a one-year time base as a temporary experiment. There could be a suggestion of a three-year base, but, whatever base

might have been useful as an experiment to enable us to make a proper assessment of the habits of people following the propositions in this Bill, I think that it might have been wiser to have done that.
Having said that, I must tell the House that it is my intention to support the Second Reading of the Bill.—[Interruption.]—I cannot see the point of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) laughing. He has, quite rightly, courteously listened to an evaluation of the position, and not said very much for or against the Bill. I have tried to analyse its consequences. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution was received as courteously as mine has been so far, but he has let himself down by sniggering like a fool.

Mr. Noble: I am sorry if my laughter offended the hon. Gentleman in any way, but having said that the evidence on which the Government were basing their proposition was fallacious, it seemed a little odd that the hon. Gentleman should support the Bill.

Mr. Leadbitter: The right hon. Gentleman is not offending me. He is offending against the conduct and habits of the House. I support the Bill because experience over the years has shown that Summer Time has its advantages. Because of the contributions which have been made from both sides of the House, I am certain that the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I thought that the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), who in the earlier part of his speech presented a highly intelligible set of arguments, was a little harsh, and even pompous, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) when he showed surprise, and even a little anger, at the mockery which greeted his conclusion. I do not think that it offends against the practice or dignity of the House if one is slightly amused when a speech which appears to be tending in one direction by an almost irresistible process of logic suddenly ends in the opposite conclusion. It is, I think, natural that we should find that funny.

Mr. Leadbitter: I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman can


claim that I spoke against the Bill. On the contrary, I claimed that between 1960 and 1966 opinion had altered in its favour.

Mr. Hogg: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's argument tended irresistibly to the conclusion that it was a bad Bill, until at the end he declared his intention to support it. We all know why. I shall not detain the House for very long. I dissociate myself wholly from the real reasoning underlying the hon. Gentleman's speech. This sort of thing, in a civilised assembly, ought not to be a matter for the party Whips at all.
If we really conducted our affairs in a rational way, the House would make up its mind, and the Government would feel no hurt or shame if the House decided against their judgment. The Government of the country would become neither easier nor more difficult if they were beaten. The real reason underlying the hon. Gentleman's speech is that, consciously or unconsciously, he knows that this is a bad Bill, or thinks that it is a bad one, but realises that the Government Whips are on, and that he will have to vote for it or be excluded from party meetings. I assure my hon. Friends that no one will be excluded from the 1922 Committee, whichever way he votes, and the views which I shall express about the Bill should have no weight with them other than the force of logic, if any, which they possess.
The first point to appreciate is that it is purely arbitrary or conventional, whichever one calls it, what figure one puts against the hour when the sun reaches its highest point. One can, as men have done over centuries, call it noon, or one can call it one o'clock. It makes no difference to anyone, provided that all use the same terminology. What does make a difference, however, as the debate has plainly shown, to the convenience of individuals, classes of people and localities is the time at which one gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night in relation to what the sun is doing. The sun is the fact of life. The terminology of the clock is pure convention.
I believe—this is the one point on which I differ somewhat from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. South (Mr. Ronald

Bell)—that the institution of Summer Time has proved a success in saving daylight. Saving daylight, we call it, not extending daylight. But this is so because, for 51 years, we have practised an innocent deception on one another. We call the point at which the sun reaches its highest point in the day one o'clock at one part of the year and 12 noon at another part of the year. The reason it saves daylight is that, so long as we call it something different in the different months, people do not change their actual habits.
The logical fallacy underlying the Government's thinking and that of organisations they have consulted which have supported their proposal is their failure to realise that, if we do the same thing throughout the year, the effect on people's habits created by the innocent deception must in the long run disappear. It will no longer be a deception. It will simply be an alteration of the convention under which we were working.
No one knows precisely what governs people's habits, the habits of the farmer, the office worker, the Member of Parliament, the member of a profession, the building trade operative. The total effect of the habits of the population has not yet been fully evaluated. But what we do know is that, by and large, they are the product of infinitely complex natural forces, forces which, as I say, have never been evaluated by any effective method of computation.
Two results can be predicted, however, if we alter the convention throughout the year. The first is that, during a certain period, the balance of the natural forces as they have operated in the past will be to some extent dislocated, and, after a period, the natural forces will resume their natural sway. It was for this reason that I felt that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was not being his usual self in failing to appreciate the argument which fell from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South. If we do the same thing throughout the year and allow the natural forces to operate, which is what is proposed ultimately, they will in the end resume their force and people will go on operating by the old clock because, throughout the year, they will be operating by a new convention, and the innocent deception, as I have called it, will no longer produce its effect.
On the other hand, in the immediate future there will be a good deal of dislocation of the type that was illustrated in one vein by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who talked about the building trade, and in another vein by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll who spoke of outdoor workers, and particularly those in agriculture; and by numerous hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and one hon. Lady, who spoke of the different parts of the country in degrees of latitude. Those people will be dislocated to some extent. Although not one of those groups of people probably represent a majority, they are—and this point has been made, and should be remembered—particularly vulnerable. This is what is not fully appreciated by the Government.
The people who have to get up in the dark and work in the open are more vulnerable than the office workers to inconvenience, and even to personal danger. The school child going to school in the dark is more vulnerable than the adult. Most of us are insulated from the sun. Here we are in this House, and we do not know whether it is dark or light except by looking at the clock. But those of whom we are talking are not insulated from the sun, and cannot be insulated from the sun, and one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is whether for a period—which must be limited, because the effect will wear off— we are justified in exposing the vulnerable classes to inconvenience and, perhaps, to danger in the interests of those who, whatever is done, are relatively invulnerable to the effects of the weather. On the face of it, it follows that a case has not been made out for doing this, partly because of their vulnerability, and partly because, inevitably, once we have abandoned what I have ventured to call the "innocent deception", the effects will wear off.
What is quite certain is that at one time or another the supporters of the Bill have used arguments that will not stand the light of scrutiny. For instance, the argument of conformity with Europe has been blown sky-high by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South. It may be true that there are—what was it?—more hours of business contact time, which means that if one likes one can make a

telephone call at 8 o'clock instead of at 11 o'clock and so get one's export order three hours earlier, but has it ever been thought that on the Continent of America the people in Chicago or San Francisco really suffer much business inconvenience or loss by having to telephone to New York at a time which, on the hands of the clock, is markedly different? Are the movements of aircraft in America—the busiest country in the world from the point of view of internal airlines—markedly obstructed by the fact that they operate according to the zone time which, after all, corresponds with the facts of life?
I should have thought that the answer was obvious. Yet we are now being invited to operate at a time calculated somewhere East of Berlin, and asked to pass an enactment for a move which, so far as I can judge, will make the same clock time applicable, in effect, from Berlin to somewhere in the west of Ireland—a distance of nearly 3,000 miles and I do not know how many degrees of longitude, bearing in mind that 15 degrees of longitude represent about one hour of sun time. Of course, although the Under-Secretary made a very competent and good-tempered speech, he did not talk much about the facts of life, which are that the earth rotates on its own axis in such a way that the sun rises at one point of position on the globe at a different moment from that at which it rises at another. This is the first fact that he has not hoisted in.
The second is that, during the summer, there is actually more daylight than during the winter. He has assumed that there is something beneficial in using the same time all the year through, when the whole object of having Summer Time is to recognise the fact of life that, in summer, the day is longer. The third fact which he has not hoisted in is that, in my hon. Friend's constituency in Cumberland, the sun rises at a different hour from that at which it rises in my constituency of St. Marylebone, and that what may be tolerable with London Transport, when one can travel to work underground, is rather more difficult if one has to catch a train or bus, travel for half an hour to one's work and then stumble across the fields in the dark. It is not the same thing. It is much nicer in St. Marylebone than in


Penrith. I know both towns. When one gets to Caithness and Sutherland, the facts are different again.
Individual hon. Members have spoken about particular interests and I have given a reason for thinking, as I do, that those particular interests, whatever their numerical strength—which no one has tried to measure—are worth a little more consideration than their numbers would suggest, because they are more vulnerable. But they have also introduced a piece of legislation in which there is a logical fallacy, which is that it is wrong to suppose that what works if one has two different clocks, one for the summer and the other for the winter, will work equally well if one makes one clock, whatever it be, operate for the whole year.
Therefore, whatever the Government Whips may do, we do not intend to punish our Members for voting according to their consciences, but, if my hon. Friends divide the House on the Bill, I at least shall vote against it.

9.43 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I should make it clear immediately that I am not trying to wind up the debate, since I understand that one or two hon. Members still wish to speak, but I should like to say something from the Scottish point of view, since a number of speeches have raised points about Scotland.
It has been generally recognised that the problems which will arise if the Bill is eventually passed are related to the fact that the balance of advantage and disadvantage in Scotland is rather different to that in the more southern regions. I shall leave my hon. Friend to deal with some of the wider issues which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) raised in his interesting speech. Some of his points certainly had considerable validity.
I will begin with industry and agriculture in Scotland. I have been asked by a number of hon. Members what the attitude of the Scottish National Farmers' Union is. I am surprised that I should have been asked, and particularly that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) should not know what that attitude is. I should have thought that if

the N.F.U. had the sort of strong feelings about the Bill that have been voiced today, they would have taken good care, as they have done on numerous occasions, to ensure that at least the right hon. Gentleman—not to mention every other Scottish hon. Member—knew the views of the Scottish N.F.U.
The fact that the N.F.U. have not done so demonstrates that perhaps the strength of feeling about the matter which has been voiced is not quite as great as a number of hon. Members have suggested. Having said that, I must in honesty now tell the House that the Scottish N.F.U. is against the proposal. However, I gather that it is representing in that not so much a distinctive Scottish view but a general view which is held by the farming community as a whole, since I understand that the N.F.U. of England and Wales is also, but perhaps with not the same strength of feeling, against the change.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that if one is counting heads and measuring the strength of opinion in different quarters, one can say that, generally speaking, commerce and industry are in favour of the change. This certainly applies in Scotland as well as elsewhere.
For example, the S.T.U.C. on the workers' side has expressed its support. So has the Scottish Council for Development and Industry and the Scottish division of the C.B.I. Thus, the balance is certainly in favour of the change. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I take die point made by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone that, in weighing up what may seem superficially to be majority and minority interests, one must to some extent give weighting to the more vulnerable sections of the community. This is a balance which must be given and it particularly applies to, for example, the building and agriculture industries. But even in Scotland I believe that the balance of opinion is in favour of the Bill.
When considering the view of local authorities, it is noteworthy that the District Councils Association is in favour of the change, but without very great enthusiasm. The county councils are, on balance, against it, but an interesting fact is that among the county


councils in Scotland in favour of it are Aberdeen, Banff, Moray and Orkney. This is interesting in view of what the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) said. In other words, despite his remarks, his own county council is in favour of the change. Perhaps it did not let him know, either.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the attitude of the Ayrshire County Council?

Mr. Millan: I do not know, but I take it that that intervention means that it is against it. Among the cities in favour of the change is Aberdeen. These are interesting facts because they demonstrate——

Mr. Clark Hutchison: What about Edinburgh?

Mr. Millan: Edinburgh is against the change, but I cannot go through every local authority in Scotland. The division in Scotland is not between the North and the South because a number of northern counties are in favour of the change.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What was the attitude of the Convention of Burghs?

Mr. Millan: I understand that the Convention of Burghs had mixed feelings about the matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Oh?

Mr. Millan: On the whole, it did not think that it would be a suitable change for Scotland.
I do not want to labour this point further. The balance of local authority view in Scotland is against the change. I say that frankly. On the other hand, among those in favour are some who, one would expect, would be rather against it so it is not a simple North-South division.
I must also tell the House that the balance of opinion among educational interests is against the change. From the educational point of view—and I have some responsibility in this sphere—it is true that the change will mean that, for a longer period in the year, many children will have to go to school in the morning in the dark. However, it will equally mean that, for a longer period in the year, they will be able to come home in the afternoon in the light. The balance here is a rather fine one. Speaking as a

parent, I am not sure that I am convinced that it is better to go to school in the light than to come home from school in the light. If there are disadvantages there are also compensating advantages in the afternoon.

Mr. Noble: When talking about these things, has the hon. Gentleman borne in mind, as I am certain teachers have, that over a great range of Scotland children have to go in school buses to get home? As long journeys are involved, they will be leaving and getting home in the dark for a great period of the winter.

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Unless the school hours are changed what one loses in the morning one must gain in the afternoon. This is regardless of whether one travels by bus, on foot, by bicycle, or what-have-you. As the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone pointed out, this does not affect the hours of daylight one little bit.
To please my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, I may now say that Ayrshire County Council is in favour of the change.
Again, from the educational point of view, it is perfectly possible—I am not sure how this applies in England and Wales, but it is certainly true in Scotland —for education authorities to vary school hours as they wish. This is not something which is laid down centrally and there is a great deal of variation at the moment. It is perfectly possible for education authorities which feel they would be at a considerable disadvantage if the change were made to make a change in the school hours to compensate, or partly to compensate, for the change in the time.
Road safety is the only other specific point which has been put to me. The chief constables are in favour of the change. They believe that the improvement in the situation in the afternoon from the hours of daylight point of view, will be greater than any disadvantage in the morning so far as we can estimate what the numbers of accidents are likely to be. This is the kind of estimate that cannot be made with complete authority. All we can do is to make certain statistical calculations and take into account in making any forecast how


people's habits may change if this legislation goes through. Any calculation of this sort must necessarily be tentative. In all this one has to take some account of the attitude of those concerned with road safety. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned earlier the attitude of road safety organisations and I have given the attitude of the chief constables in Scotland.
I make the final point that although there are obviously special difficulties in Scotland it would be far too simple a view to take that there is some policy which would be right for England and Wales and some other which must be right for Scotland. In fact, the divisions of opinion are less between North and South of the Border than they are between different interests which consider that their businesses, their commerce and their working day will be affected by a measure of this sort. I hope that I have made it clear that while there is a Scottish aspect, there is by no means an overwhelming case on one side or the other for including or excluding Scotland. Despite the rather jocular reference by the right hon. Member for Argyll, this is a change which has to be applied to the United Kingdom as a whole.

9.54 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: I shall deal with some of the points made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland a little later in my speech. I oppose the Bill. Every blessed thing that this Government have touched has come to grief. I plead with the Government to at least keep their hands off the clock. This is a regrettable Measure. I am staggered, as most of the population will be staggered, that the Government, at a time when the country is at its last gasp, have introduced a Measure like this which will do nothing to help to modernise Britain or to get her out of her difficulties.
The question of the name of the Bill is not one which I want to debate particularly, because I should like to see the Bill torn up. However, knowing that the Bill will be pushed through the House by the Whips, we have no alternative but to accept that it will go through, in which case a sensible name should be chosen. We could hardly do better than to call

the new time which we are to have "Labour Time" as a permanent memorial to the follies of this Government.
Very little consideration can have been given to the consequences of the Bill on those who live further north. The Under-Secretary referred to one or two points, but others deserve consideration. One is the question of fuel consumption. Everybody knows that the coldest hours of the 24-hour period are the two hours before dawn. This is the time when people will be rising and using fuel to keep themselves warm. Their rising an hour earlier than before will mean a greater demand for fuel. This will affect Scotland in particular, where prices of fuel are already higher than they are in other parts of the British Isles.
The second point is the psychological effect of having a longer period of darkness in the mornings and the depression which this can easily cause. There is a well-known psychological effect known as darkness sickness. I have received a letter from a constituent referring to a research student in Lapland who made a broadcast in which he spoke of darkness sickness and of the inability to work in northern latitudes. She said that this may apply to the Orkneys and the Shetlands. It is a difficult psychological situation. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary did not refer to this, because he is responsible for medicine in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need for hon. Members to carry on loud conversation in the House when an hon. Member is speaking.

Earl of Dalkeith: I come to the question of schools. I ask the Minister to consider the health possibilities. If children have to rise an hour earlier to go to school at the coldest hour of the day, the health of some children may suffer. The Government are determined to force the Bill through, but have any discussions been held with education authorities to discover whether they are prepared to revise school hours? This may become necessary. What are the reactions of schoolteachers in Scotland to this?
I was very surprised to hear the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department say that the Road Research Laboratory is apparently in favour of this change. With two lots of rush hours


taking place in hours of darkness or in twilight hours, instead of only one, the accident rate will be increased. Further, in the winter conditions of fog, snow and ice prevail. The hours just before dawn are the most dangerous. When are the road workers to have an opportunity to clear the roads of ice if everybody is on the roads an hour earlier than they were before?
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has not, apparently, attached much importance to the views of the N.F.U. I am a member of the Scottish N.F.U. and I was never consulted about this. I would certainly support its views——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the British Standard Time Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Ennals.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Earl of Dalkeith: Life and organisation on farms can become fairly complicated in view of the great many outdoor operations which can be carried out only in daylight—after 9.30 or 10 a.m. in many parts of Scotland. Part of the farm staff may have to get up at the usual time to complete the milking and dispatch of milk to the towns. Some members of the staff will be hanging around doing nothing, waiting until daylight, while others have to get up to conform with the time the Minister and the Government tell us suits the bulk of people in the urban districts. The same things apply to forestry. Those who work in it will be going to work at 9.30 or 10 a.m., and that will throw them out of gear with those who have other ways of life, such as shopkeepers.
The Minister talked of consultations, and gave a magnificent looking list of bodies he consulted. I agree that it is impressive and looks very democratic, but he did not tell us in great detail the result of the consultations. I am worried that in their three years' in office the Government have become so hardened to having heated passionate criticism of all their suggestions whenever they consult anybody that when a suggestion is merely

greeted with indifference they tend to assume that that is tacit acceptance.
If more publicity were given to the subject I feel that there would be a great wave of opposition, particularly in Scotland, where I believe there has been very little publicity so far. I hope that the debate will bring home to people what will happen to them.
The Minister admits that there are advantages and disadvantages and that there is a very fine balance in deciding whether the change should be made. No doubt if he represented a constituency in the North he would not have been biased on the question of proceeding with the legislation, as he may be now, representing as he does a constituency which is practically falling off the bottom of England. Although there may be advantages to some people in some parts of the country, they are heavily outweighed by the disadvantages to people in Scotland and the north of England, and I shall therefore oppose the Bill as hard as I can.

10.4 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: It is a pity that the Second Reading of the Bill is before 18th February, the date of the experiment with the early introduction of Summer Time, because all of us would have been much better informed by our constituents if we were debating the subject a week after that.
Many of my hon. Friends have raised points which I was keen to make. One that I would particularly put to the Under-Secretary of State is that this winter London and the South have suffered two fairly severe storms, and I believe that many thousands of working hours were lost at great cost. I wonder what effect those conditions would have had if sunrise had been an hour later.
If we seek to improve our industrial production, we do not want to ask people to start work three hours before sunrise in mid-winter. Many people assure me that the average time for travelling to work is an hour, so that people would have to leave their homes four hours before the sun rises. This is what we shall be asking them to do in the winter.
Are the Government absolutely confident that this is the best way in which to ensure that factories start exactly on


time and that everyone is buzzing and getting on with the job at the time he should be there? I do not believe that that will be the result. I believe that the results will be entirely contrary to what should happen and that on the economic balance, which the Under-Secretary described as being so narrow, the Bill should be rejected, and I hope that it will be.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: So much has been said which I would have said that I shall restrict my remarks to what I believe to be new points. The only argument in favour of the Bill is very narrow, and it has not been made by the Government for obvious reasons, and it is that if they go on for their full five years at least we shall have one hour less of them.
I wish to speak particularly about the building industry. If the Bill goes through, it will not be possible in the winter to start building projects unless they are centrally heated. What will probably happen is that customs will alter and builders will start work at 9 o'clock instead of 8 o'clock. The result will be an increase in peak-hour traffic, and if there is anything which the country wants to avoid it is an increase in peak-hour traffic.
It has been said that there has not been much protest about the Bill. Even while the debate has been going on, I have had a telephone call from constituents who have said that they did not realise that they had an option. As usual, the Government have announced this Measure as a fait accompli and people have not realised that by writing to their Members of Parliament and objecting to the Bill they had a sporting chance of getting it altered. This is typical of the dictatorial methods which the Government affect. No positive argument has been made for the Bill which we should reject out of hand.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I agree with what has been said about the complete lack of positive argument in support of the Bill, not only by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, but by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Throughout the debate the

onus of proving that the Bill is wrong has been put on those who will suffer from its provisions. In so many different ways those sections of the community, the outside workers, the schoolchildren and others, are those who will have to adjust themselves and adjust their social habits and ways of work and hours of getting up, and all for no positive reason. It is utterly wrong that these sections of the community, particularly those in the remoter areas, should be put out for no very good reason.
Those who want the Bill to go through have a remedy in their own hands. All they have to do is to get up one hour earlier in the morning. But they are using the Bill as an excuse for not getting up an hour earlier. If they were prepared to do so, there would be no need for the Bill. They are using it as an excuse for fiddling with the hands of the clock.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman now in favour of morning sittings of the House of Commons?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thoroughly enjoyed attending them.
There are two practical considerations. There has been a reference to the possibility of varying school hours. Already, in parts of Scotland, especially in country areas, in winter time schools start at halfpast nine. Is it seriously suggested that education authorities in those areas should put back the starting time of school to 10.30? This is the kind of thing which he is suggesting.
Secondly, in relation to the power industry, we have spoken about how peak hour usage will be transferred from the evening to the morning. Can the Under-Secretary of State give an assurance that there is sufficient generating capacity for this in Scotland and that the electricity boards will be prepared to adjust the times of their off-peak tariffs and take account of the extra requirements in the morning when it will be very much colder?
I support the view that if the Government succeed in winning the vote tonight —and I sincerely hope that they do not— I trust that they will consider operating the Bill for an experimental period of two or three years, and preferably only one year, to see how it works.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: As the debate has proceeded, I have become more and more astonished that the Government have introduced the Bill. I expected to hear telling arguments from the Government spokesmen giving reasons why the Bill has been introduced. Both Ministers have spoken very charmingly, but neither has produced anything in the shape of a convincing reason for the Bill.
I should have thought that the rather piecemeal revelations of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland as to who was in favour and who was against the Bill made a less than convincing case. He produced six organisations in favour of the change and four organisations against it. Although these organisations are important to the life of Scotland and to many people, in no way could it be said that they make up a broad spread in terms of the number of people they represent. Therefore, it is not possible to say from the figures on which the Government have been working that the majority of people in Scotland are in favour of or against the Bill.
I am utterly convinced that a clear majority of the ordinary people of Scotland if they have heard about this matter, are gravely disturbed because they see in it a needless interference with the habits which they have formed over a long time. I do not pretend that everyone will be in a state of alarm, horror and despondency, but this is a needless interference in the pattern of life which people have established. The system of changing time registered on the clock to represent the winter months difference from the summer months was introduced to make the daylight hours at their most convenient for people's lives. People's lives have not changed that much as regards the times when they stop or start doing things since this was brought in half a century or so ago.
From where did the great demand for this change come? Who was perpetually representing to the Government that it should be made? Who was repeating monthly or yearly demands that the Government should make this change? I suggest—I am sure that this is true, but I should like to have it confirmed—that virtually no one has been pestering the Government or anyone else for such a

change. It has been introduced as an afterthought to the European negotiations and it now appears to be irrelevant.
I wish to say one thing about the theory that business men are gravely inconvenienced by the fact that the lime at which we operate is an hour different from that in Europe. I have never heard a more fatuous argument. I cannot claim to be a person who often telephones to the Continent, but on occasion I have had to do it as a matter of business and I have never had the remotest difficulty in getting through and working out the complicated sums, for which no doubt the hon. Gentleman would need a slide rule, to discover when I am likely to find my customer on the other side of the Channel at his telephone.
To suggest that the one hour difference between here and Europe is vital to our export trade is the most fantastic over-statement that I have heard for a long time. Most of our exports do not even go to Europe, they go to places like the United States and Canada, where the difference in hours is infinitely greater, and to Australia and New Zealand, where it is greater again. It seems that the case to be made has been conspicuous by its absence.
This has become, or ought to become, something of a Parliamentary occasion. We are debating an important subject and virtually all speakers, with one or two exceptions have registered strong protests against this Measure. If the House of Commons means anything at all, and I thought that we were supposed to be on one of those rather luxurious evenings when we were on a free vote, then surely it means that the Minister ought to take careful note of all the points so tellingly made by all the speakers this evening.
If he just brushes them aside as being of no consequence, as being as his right hon. Friend said, just opposition for opposition's sake, he is making a grave mistake because I have never been more serious in my life than when I say that this is an undesirable Measure, possibly a small one, but one that the House of Commons should reject.

10.17 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: It is scandalous that the House should be asked to debate this Bill and to find that


the Government have a Whip on. There is no party ideology involved in whether we have British Standard Time, Labour time or Greenwich Mean Time. There is no reason why it should be settled on a party basis. This is surely one of those occasions when the matter ought to be settled by the weight of the argument in the House.
There is no doubt that so far there have been no really powerful speeches from the other side of the House, and certainly not from the Government Front Bench—[Interruption.]—I was here this afternoon when the debate started and I came back again this evening. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise the amount of time I spend on the benches in this Chamber. It is scandalous that a Measure of this sort should become a party matter.
I was enormously impressed by the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). There are one or two points which showed the weakness of the Government's case. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) talked about the difference in time between us and Europe. Anyone who has been in commercial life will know that there is an actual advantage in this difference, because people, being creatures of habit, and having problems, say "Get me so and so on the telephone; get me so and so, and so and so." The result is that if everyone over a vast area had the same time there would be such an enormous pressure on telephone calls at the same time that it would be intolerable. If we have difference in time between us and the Continent we are much more likely to get through to our customer.
This is found in America with the difference in time scale between Eastern Time, Western Time and Pacific Time. It has been found that this staggers the weight of telephone calls. What has impressed me about the debate so far is the lack of appreciation on the Government side that in an urban society, as ours largely is, there are an enormous number of people who could not really care very much whether we are on Greenwich Mean Time or the new British Standard Time.
The advantages or disadvantages are marginal one way or the other. If a person has to go to work in the morning and work in a warm factory it does not make all that much difference whether he gets there at one hour on the clock or another.
I am surprised that the Government have not taken nearly enough notice of the interests of the minority of the population who will be affected adversely. We have heard enough about the agricultural community, but I have not heard anyone mention the problem of people like postmen and milkmen whose job it is to make their deliveries in the early hours. One hon. Member spoke about building workers. I would point out that it is much harder to do their job of work an hour earlier, when it is colder. If there has been a frost, the situation is more difficult an hour earlier than when working on our basic clock. A point which has not been made forcefully enough is that the efficiency of the nation is less in winter.
Anyone who drives a car late at night knows that we do not get all that number of snowstorms and keen frosts until after midnight. If there is a snowstorm, it takes time for the railways and local authorities to get matters organised. If the clock has been put on an hour, it means that they have that much less time to get the roads clear and the railway points working, because they will be dealing with them at the coldest period of the night rather than an hour later, as it is now.
I am in favour of British Summer Time, because it has a great many advantages, but not in the winter months——

Mr. Peter Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Glover: No, I will not give way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, no doubt he will try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
To alter the time in the winter months will reduce the efficiency of the nation rather than increase it and will put an extra burden on those who are really affected, whereas it will not bring any corresponding advantage to those working in decent conditions.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I will not delay the House for more than a few minutes, because what I want to say can be said briefly. I listened to the arguments of the Under-Secretary of State 'or Scotland with interest. He made the point fairly that there is a division of opinion in Scotland and that die argument is evenly balanced either way. I think that part of the reason for it is that people in Scotland have not been very Widely informed about what is proposed. I do not think that it is realised what the Government have in mind. To my mind, this strengthens the case of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) for making it, if we must have it at all, a temporary proposal to see how it works and the sort of reaction that we get. Incidentally, I think that there will be a powerful reaction against the proposal. My hon. Friend suggested that it might be tried for two or three years. I would prefer to see an experiment for one year.
The Under-Secretary of State pointed out that important bodies purporting to speak for industry in Scotland were in favour of the change. All the industrialists to whom I have spoken in my constituency about the proposal have been against it, without exception.
What I object to and what is my main reason for intervening in this debate is that this should be a matter debated on the other side of the House on the basis of a party Whip. I find it totally intolerable. Different representations are made to each of us, and this is the sort of proposal that should be debated and decided purely on its merits. Surely we shall not be told that the Government's whole programme, such as it is, will be blown aside because hon. Members opposite act in accord with their consciences or the opinions expressed to them by their constituents. I find it nauseating that a Measure of this kind should be forced through on a Government Whip.
I suppose the explanation is that the Government have cleared it with the manufacturers of diaries. So we have positions presented to the House of Commons as a fait accompli because the Government have arranged them with Messrs. Charles Letts and the diary manufacturers. I find this intolerable.

I cannot see any good reason why, on an occasion like this, we should not have a free vote and have the matter decided purely on its merits by hon. Members operating individually.
If I had any overwhelming doubts about the matter, even if I believed in it on balance, I would be strongly inclined to vote against it because hon. Members opposite are being frogmarched into the Lobby to support it. This is not the first time that this has happened in this Parliament. We had the same thing with the Decimal Currency Bill. I voted against that because hon. Members opposite were frogmarched into the Lobby in support of a decision that had been taken by the Government which they were not prepared to submit to the free opinions of hon. Members opposite. It is intolerable that an hon. Member opposite should be denied the company of his friends and relations in party committees upstairs because he breaks the ranks here tonight. I think that most of the meetings upstairs, from what we read in the Press, are highly disadvantageous. It might be better if they did not have them. But it is intolerable that hon. Members should be prevented from attending the meetings because they act in support of representations which may have been made to them by their constituents and vote against the Bill tonight. For that reason——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe we are talking about Standard Time. The hon. Member must keep to the subject.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was just coming to the end. I was about to say that for that reason above all, even if I had been impressed by the argument advanced by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, I should still vote against the Bill.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: As I listened to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who has often entertained the House late at night, I thought that he had never stated a more profound truth when he said that men are creatures of habit. I had it in mind that the party opposite had the Whips on, and this, I would have thought, is the greatest single argument against the Government's proposals.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the change. I think they can be summarised by saying that the advantages, by and large, accrue to the urban dweller and possibly to the indoor worker, but the disadvantages are very great to the rural dweller and the outdoor worker. As I represent a very rural constituency, I am against the Bill. Even though one might argue that the advantages and disadvantages are well balanced, the advantages surely depend on change of habit following upon the passage of the Bill, and habit takes a long time to change in this country for good or ill, as we know.
What is argued here is that we can adapt ourselves. The bricklayer and the plasterer were referred to. The bricklayer starts at 8 o'clock in the morning, but he cannot start his bricklaying until a considerable time has elapsed and the light has improved. The plasterer cannot start in the depth of winter until a good deal later. If they adapted their hours to the new Bill even for a year or two, the country would lose economically.
There is no doubt that there is everything to be said against the Bill in the agricultural sphere, because it means that farmers and farm workers will have to work a great deal in the hours of darkness in the morning.
I agree with a great deal of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I do not often entirely agree, but I did so on this occasion in connection with schoolchildren. This is particularly so in a rural constituency. Some of the children in my constituency already have to be in the road to catch a bus well before 8 o'clock to get to school by 9 o'clock. I suggest that for them to do the equivalent of getting up and going down the road before 7 o'clock to get to school by 8 o'clock, which this will mean, is a tremendous hardship on them. The psychological difference to a child having to get up and go to school when the dawn is breaking will not be compensated for by the advantage of coming home in the daylight. What do children do at night in the winter? They go indoors and indulge in indoor activities. It will

make a great difference to them if they have to get up an hour earlier in the middle of the night.
I think that the psychological effect of the Bill has been ill thought out. I think that the Government should reconsider the matter. It shows the domination of the urban dweller, of the indoor worker, over the rural dweller and the outdoor worker. In the present state of our economic affairs, when so much is going wrong, and when everything the Government touch goes wrong, I think that they are extremely foolish, whatever the theoretical advantages of doing so, to tackle this now. They would be well advised to drop it.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I have come into the Chamber to listen to the debate, and not to make a long speech. I hope that this will be the shortest speech of my life in the House. I have listened to the speeches from both sides of the House, particularly during the latter part of the debate. Most hon. Members have spoken against the Government. I came in to vote for the Government, and discovered that I was likely to be one of the few Opposition Members to support them.
I come from a mixed constituency, industrial, urban, and rural, and many months ago I discussed this proposal with a number of people. The more progressive farmers have accepted this as of no great inconvenience in a modern farming environment. Urban and city dwellers are more and more working and living on a shift basis, and those on the early shift, finishing at 1 or 2 o'clock, welcome the opportunity of a longer afternoon one week in three, or whatever the arrangement may be. There are many other examples of a bit of extra daylight being welcomed by both office and factory workers.
I do not intend to redeploy the arguments which have been deployed by the Government, but, as most of the speakers to whom I have listened have been utterly opposed to the Measure, and as I intend to vote for it, I wish to speak to that effect and let it be known that not everyone on this side of the House is opposed to it.

10.32 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I have risen to speak for a few moments to point out that the extraordinary sentiments expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) are evidence, not of the attitude of the Liberal Party to this Measure, but of the extraordinary freedom of expression which is allowed within our ranks. It is not only the Conservative Party which has a free vote on this issue. I agree that it is remarkable that a free vote is not allowed on the other side of the House, because if it were it would allow us to make a reasonable arithmetical calculation of where the balance of opinion lay.

Earl of Dalkeith: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what time the Liberal Party advocates we should keep, and what time its Members keep, which accounts for the hon. Gentleman's arrival at this debate exactly three hours late? No Member of the Liberal Party came here until three hours after the debate started.

Dr. Winstanley: I heard every word of the hon. Gentleman's speech. It was that which stimulated me into coming into the debate, and I felt that I had to express my view.
I have risen to point out that we, too, have a free vote. It ought to be made clear that the view expressed by my hon. aid learned Friend on behalf of his rural constituents is not a general view which is held within my party. Indeed, I do not accept that it is a view which is held generally in rural areas.
The argument about the farmer is illfounded. It may be a disadvantage to put the clocks forward, but I question the statement that the attitude of the N.F.U. is that there are many disadvantages in the proposed legislation. It would get farmers out of the appalling mess of having a biannual complete change in their routine, which, I am given to understand, is extremely upsetting for rural people, for farmers and many of those whom my hon. and learned Friend represents.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) attempted to show that the argument about European communications is entirely invalid. It is not. He referred

to the occasional telephone call which he makes to Europe. We are not talking about occasional telephone calls. We are talking about firms which are in constant touch with Europe. This change would at once give them three hours of additional communication time.
Before we vote on the Bill, it should be emphasised that industry, on the whole, is in favour of it. The Trades Union Congress has asked for it. The National Farmers' Union is in favour of it, whatever individual farmers may say. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Yes; it has expressed that view not once but over and over again. The N.F.U. has said that there are disadvantages, but it is in favour of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I have correspondence which suggests that, while the National Farmers' Union does not like it, it feels that it would be preferable to the present system under which there is a biannual disruption of agricultural routine. I accept that there are many farmers who do not like the proposed change, but that is the official view of the National Fanners' Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Hon. Members may protest. They may not like it, but that is the view of the N.F.U.
Therefore, the balance of opinion is in favour of the Bill. We have listened to a great many speeches suggesting, somewhat sotto voce and quietly but none the less clearly, that something secret and not entirely acceptable has been done. In fact, many hon. Members, myself included, are strongly in favour of the Bill.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Ennals:: By leave of the House, I should like to speak again. I, too, regret that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) did not come a little earlier to present his argument, particularly as, so I understand, he was leading something of a campaign in favour of the Bill by Motions before the House. It would have been helpful if he had given the weight of his argument earlier in the day.
The debate has had a number of advantages in that we have been able to draw upon the experience of hon. Members on both sides from different parts of the country and representing different interests. Several hon. Members claimed to represent interests, perhaps, without


much authority for so doing. I was interested to note that one hon. Gentleman seemed to speak on behalf of industry rather than the Confederation of British Industry.
Although some serious arguments against this Measure have been put to the House, they have been grossly exaggerated by some hon. Members. Moreover, it has been suggested that, somehow or other, the Bill has been introduced hastily, without consultation, for some strange and obtuse motive. In fact, the consultation which has led up to the Bill has gone on over many years, during the lifetime not just of this Government but of the previous Government, too. The consultation which was the basis of it in 1960 was before the Labour Government came into power, and the 1966 consultation sought to bring matters up to date and gain an assessment of opinion in the country from responsible bodies.
The hon. and learned Member for Buckingham, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) asked on what basis the consultation had taken place, and what was the purpose of it. The reason why there were 80 organisations consulted rather than the 180 which had originally been circulated was that we confined ourselves to the major interests, including especially those which had been opposed to the change, not those in favour of it, or those organisations whose views we had reason to believe, or we thought, might have changed during the period of five years. Most of those which were not consulted were organisations which previously had been in favour of it. Therefore, any suggestion that, somehow or other, we wanted to cook the books is quite untrue and unworthy.
Questions have been asked about pressure. There has been pressure from industry and from commerce. It has already been said that in England, Wales and Scotland the Confederation of British Industry is powerfully in favour of the Measure, and so, too, is the Trades Union Congress. It is interesting to note that when consulted in 1960 the T.U.C. was rather divided, but it has informed us that unions representing over five million members are now in favour of the change and that only a quarter of a million are opposed to it.
It was almost argued that there was a case for keeping ourselves separate from

the Continent of Europe, as though there was something almost immoral about having a time common with Europe. The hon. Member for Cheadle is quite right in saying that there is clear advantage, not only to business interests but to transport interests as well. The Bill has come before Parliament partly as a result of pressure but partly, also, as a result of the considered view of the Government that it would be in the general interest of the country.
There have been criticisms of the Government's case. Some hon. Members have argued that in introducing the Bill I put the case too positively and brushed aside the case against it. Other hon. Members opposite have said that no argument at all has been presented in its favour—such arguments came mainly from hon. Members who had not attended the earlier part of the debate.
The Government have tried to get the balance straight. It would be unreasonable to suggest that there is not considerable difference of opinion. I have weighed this up, and would now like to summarise the matter again. The Economic Review showed an almost equal balance of advantage and disadvantage. In general, the conclusion was that the change would be advantageous to commercial interests—particularly those with continental connections—to transport interests, whether domestic or overseas, to the ports, and marginally to the tourist industry. It would be disadvantageous to agriculture and to the construction industries, about which I should like to say something a little later. The strongest argument in favour came from the inquiry into the social consequences.
I have mentioned the Road Research Laboratory which, contrary to its opinion in I960, had reached the view in 1966 that the change would lead to some quite considerable reduction in accidents. I would also mention the changed attitude amongst the teachers' organisations.
Reference has been made to general public opinion. I do not think that any of us would place too much weight on public opinion polls, but one public opinion poll, conducted on a national scale, showed that 45 per cent. were in favour of the Government's proposal, 25 per cent, wanted to leave things as they


were, and 27 per cent. did not express an opinion.

Sir S. Summers: Are we to understand from what the hon. Gentleman says that in 1960 the Road Research Laboratory— whose advice, we understand, is based on scientific evidence—was against the proposition that there would be fewer accidents, but stated six years later that accidents would be reduced? Is it a fact that scientific evidence changed in such a short time?

Mr. Ennals: It is the fact that in 1960 the Road Research Laboratory was doubtful, but the research carried out from then to 1966 is in favour of the Government's proposal.
I recognise the difficulties that affect the North, and particularly Scotland. I reiterate the view expressed earlier that the main division is not just between north and south but between town, industrial and urban dwellers and the people living in the countryside. It would be absurd to pretend, and the Government would not pretend, that there will not be difficulties for those living in the countryside, and I should like, first, to look at the schools aspect. I was asked what consultation there had been with education organisations. Of the 13 teachers and local authority associations consulted, eight were in favour and five wished lo keep things as they were. It was interesting that while the views of the education authorities were divided, and the County Councils Associations, for instance, were against the proposal, all the principal teachers' organisations were in favour. This includes the National Union of Teachers, die National Association of Schoolmasters and the National Association of Head Teachers, who were all in favour of the changes that we are putting forward.
There are, of course, problems of children going to and from school, especially in the depth of winter. In many parts of the country, they will either go to school in the dark or come back in the dark. There are problems when children travel in the dark and there are problems concerning road accidents
There are problems of another nature. There are children who have been subjected to attacks, particularly in die country and on common land. The evi-

dence on this is that it is much more likely to happen late in the day than it does early in the day. In any event, children are more at risk from accidents late in the day because they loiter and play on their return home, whereas when going to school they go directly to school. This partly explains the view that from a road safety standpoint as well as for the general safety of children, this Measure will be advantageous.
It is quite wrong to suggest, as some hon. Members have done, that children automatically go straight back home from school at the end of the day. Apart from games which they may play, there are school activities which keep them late.
There are much greater doubts concerning children in the countryside with longer journeys to school—bus journeys, and so on—than there are for children in the cities, and we must recognise this. It was not unfair to have suggested, and it has been supported by a number of local authorities, that during certain periods of the year it is possible to make an adjustment in school times, as affecting both die time of starting in the morning and the period of lunch hour, to minimise the disadvantage of travelling at one or other end of the day in darkness. As to health and accidents, it was made clear that most of the bodies concerned with road safety, including the police, are in favour of the Measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a point concerning the construction industry, and there are problems here. It is only fair to say that those involved in die industry are divided among themselves, although certainly die employers are against the proposal. The building trade unions, on die other hand, and the specialists and the subcontractors have said that they are in favour of the proposal.
I was asked the view of the Winter Building Advisory Committee. The majority of its members considered the advantages to outweigh die disadvantages for die building industry. The principal advantage which they saw in the change lies in the possibility that more hours of daylight could be made available for working in the winter


months. They said that on G.M.T. there are periods when there is sufficient daylight to begin work before 7.30 but that this cannot be used because 7.30 is the earliest normal acceptable starting time and that for this reason there would be more hours of daylight that would be worked if the change was carried through.
The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) said that people would not get up in the dark. I do not know what her contact is with workpeople. Quite apart from shift workers, during winter months already there are very many who get up in the dark. The supposition that people normally rise at 9 a.m. is simply not true and suggests that the hon. Lady is not in touch with the life of the ordinary working man.

Mrs. Ewing: I think that the hon. Gentleman his misquoted me. I made the fair point that there would be less inclination to do something which is already hard—getting up in the morning —if it has to be done in the dark. I warn the House that there will be a great deal of absenteeism as a result.

Mr. Ennals: I do not know about the hon. Lady, but I get up when the alarm clock rings, whether it is light or dark. The majority of her arguments had little validity——

Mr. John Hynd: And their wives.

Mr. Ennals: Yes, this applies to their wives as well.
We must also accept that there is a substantial difference of opinion about agricultural workers and that, although the National Farmers' Union is not in favour of this proposal, and I must make that clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I did say and I adhere to it that its opinion is much less rigorous than it was and I hope that it is true that, if and

when the Bill is carried, it will see many of its advantages. It is also true, however, that the National Association of Agricultural Workers has come out in favour of it.

Therefore, the argument of hon. Gentlemen that this Measure does not command support has no foundation; I believe that it will command a great deal. One of the disadvantages for many hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they simply cannot tolerate the possibility of change. They cannot concede that it can be of advantage. None of us would propose a Bill whose only merit was a change, but we are convinced that this Measure will be in the general interests of the country.

Some have asked, why not an experimental Measure? If we were to try it out for a year, many contentions by hon. Gentlemen opposite would prove to be right. People would not attempt to adjust, as they must, to the change and it would be much more unsettling if they were not certain whether the old or the new arrangement would eventually apply. We are going in the dark here. We do not know what the consequences will be. We can make our studies and research on the best possible information with such details as we have, but it is obvious that only time will tell. If it were discovered in two years that the disadvantages rehearsed by hon. Gentlemen opposite prevailed, then we would have to take note of that.

The Bill is not the be all and end all, but the Government are convinced that, although it is a modest Measure, its advantages greatly outweigh its disadvantages and that it will be in the country's interests. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen will support the Government in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 61.

Division No. 32.]
AYES
10.54 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Brooks, Edwin


Alldritt, Walter
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Allen, Scholefield
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Booth, Albert
Cant, R. B.


Bagier, Gordon A. T,
Boyden, James
Carmichael, Neil


Beaney, Alan
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bence, Cyril
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald




Concannon, J. D,
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Moyle, Roland


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Albert


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunter, Adam
Norwood, Christopher


Dalyell, Tam
Hynd, John
Oakes, Gordon


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, G. Ernest (Stretford)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Oram, Albert E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Dell, Edmund
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, Trevor


DobSon, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunwoody Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lawson, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Ellis, John
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ennals, David
Lee, John (Reading)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul


Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Finch, Harold
Loughlin, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Luard, Evan
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tie-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lubbock, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foley, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ford, Ben
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Forrester, John
McCann, John
Slater, Joseph


Fowler, Gerry
MacColl, James
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Macdonald, A. H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Garrett, W. E.
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackie, John
Swain, Thomas


Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.
Taverne, Dick


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Hannan, William
MacPherson, Malcolm
Vickers, Dame Joan


Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, David (Consett)


Haseldine, Norman
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hattersley, Roy
Marks, Kenneth
Weitzman, David


Hazell, Bert
Marquand, David
Wellbeloved, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Whitlock, William


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hilton, W. S.
Mendelson, J. J.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Bruce
Winnick, David


Horner, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Houghton, Rt, Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Yates, Victor


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)



Howie, W.
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hey, James
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Harold Walker and


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Eric G. Varley.




NOES


Baker, W. H. K.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Russell, Sir Ronald


Batsford, Brian
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Scott, Nicholas


Boardman, Tom
Gurden, Harold
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Sharpies, Richard


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hooson, Emlyn
Stodart, Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Kitson, Timothy
Summers, Sir Spencer


Campbell, Gordon
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Clegg, Walter
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.


Costain, A. P.
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ward, Dame Irene


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Maude, Angus
Weatherill Bernard


Doughty, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliott. R.W.(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne.N.)
More, Jasper
Wylie, N. R.


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
NicholIs, Sir Harmar
Younger, Hn. George


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Farr, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Prior, J. M. L.
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Gibson-Watt, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Royle, Anthony

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

H.M. DOCKYARDS (ADMINISTRATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: What I say tonight will be particularly concerned with Portsmouth, but it will be relevant to the other dockyards and their supporting communities. There are at least three topical reasons for this debate.
First, there is the significance of the Government's recent defence policy changes for the communities in the location of the dockyards still too dependent on the yards for their economic well-being. I gather that the Town Clerk of Portsmouth has already written to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of Defence for the Royal Navy reminding him of the long-standing commitment of the Ministry of Defence to give maximum warning of any signicant change in manpower needs. The vulnerability of Portsmouth has been brought home to us all this week by the significance of the closure of Hawker Siddeley and the human problems that involves, especially for older workers of the city. Secondly, there is the level of morale in the yard at the moment. My hon. Friend and I have received numerous letters about this. But I select this evening just briefly two examples. First, the opening sentence in a letter from a greatly respected trade unionist in Portsmouth Dockyard reads as follows:
The trade union leaders in the yards are firmly of the opinion that that general morale of the men is as poor as most can remember going back over the past two or three decades.
The other example which I wish to take is the first sentence in a letter from a much respected representative of a white collar union. The letter opens in much the same vein:
There is much dissatisfaction amongst the technical and drawing office grades in Portsmouth Dockyard.

The third topical reason for this debate, perhaps the most topical of all, is the Government's concern with economic efficiency through the country and the consequential need to set an example in their own direct sphere of influence. There are about 35,000 men employed in the dockyards and there is extensive capital equipment within them. Here, if anywhere, the Government have an opportunity to show the industrial community throughout Britain what efficient management can be.
No intelligent person in Portsmouth wants to see the dockyards continued as a form of public out relief. What we want is a well-considered forecast of future naval requirements and the preparation of well-equipped, modernised dockyard units to meet those requirements. We as a city community hope that all this can be rapidly accompanied by the release of surplus land and facilities for alternative housing, industry and commercial port development, all badly needed in the area of Portsmouth.
In the meantime, all sorts of rumours are to be heard. One such rumour is that there is one dockyard too many in Britain at the moment. A rumour of this kind is obviously demoralising. It should be cleared up at once by an early and categorical statement of exactly what the future holds in store from the Ministry of Defence. There must be the maximum possible notice for any necessary transition to alternative industrial and economic priorities within the context of regional plans such as those of the South-East Regional Planning Board.
Even allowing for modernisation and rationalisation of the yards in order realistically to meet new commitments, there will still be special problems. For example, there is the yards' garage or maintenance function as well as their straightforward job of production. Bottlenecks, with uneven distribution of the work load, are bound to occur, although I am firmly convinced that these could be modified by greater flexibility, with the co-operation of both sides, in the management of manpower. The yards will continue to need some spare capacity to meet emergencies. Clearly it would be most alarming if the yards were working flat out in normal


times so that there was no slack to be utilised in time of special circumstances.
Taking this last point together with the considerable resources of engineering skill and equipment in the yards, I cannot bring myself to believe that the present entirely passive attitude to outside civil contract work can survive. A change in this respect will require policy changes on the part of the Government and a new commercial basis to tendering and pricing, rather than the present post-operation actual cost system. At present it is altogether too lackadaisical, with no one person specifically responsible for watching surplus capacity and dynamically going out to attract alternative work. Change in this sphere would help to gear the yards to maximum continuing efficiency. In contrast, at present there is increasing concern at the amount of work going out to private contractors while some yards' facilities are not fully utilised. The argument has been forcefully put to me that the civilian contractors should be free to contribute to the export and import-substitution drive without having to contribute to defence programmes which could be undertaken in the yards.
In approaching the reform of the yards, I believe that five problems are worth special attention. First, we must look at the duplication of control. There is a confusion of naval and civilian management stretching down from the most senior level to modest levels of administration. What, for example, is the precise definition of responsibility between the short-stay—I think that it is two or three years—admiral superintendent and the general manager? Has this always worked well so far? If not, why not?
Is the superstructure of naval paraphernalia too complex and expensive for the industrial force to carry? If so, how can it be justified? Should not we, as in the yards in the United States, opt clearly for management either by service personnel or civilians? If we opt for service management must it not be by specialised, carefully trained personnel, who are not available in sufficient quantities at present?
Secondly, I come to the personnel problems of management-worker relationships. How well suited are the present trade union structure and the

Whitley committees to efficient worker-management relationship? How can the latter be revitalised? Is not there a need for a separate wage structure and negotiating procedure for the dockyards alone, as distinct from other sections of the Civil Service?
Why do trade union members feel as they do feel that at present their leaders negotiate under duress? What are the causes of friction, and even, at times, resentment between the blue and white collar unions? When shall we see all the proposals of the Prices and Incomes Board implemented in this respect? What is the right system of differentials in the dockyards, as dockyards? Are not even the latest pay structures inadequate, because they result from tampering with, or adjusting, fundamentally imperfect systems?
I now come to the highly contentious subject of the dockyard incentive bonus scheme. Incentive payment schemes deserve special mention because, while they work quite well in a limited number of cases, there has been far too much evidence of real resentment, unfair times, general inefficiency in their operation and even of a refusal to work them at all. Those of us with some experience of the yards all know that the job price contract system became totally discredited, and for a different reason the dockyard incentive bonus scheme is going the same way, at least in certain sections. Can an incentive scheme, whatever its merits elsewhere in industry, ever work satisfactorily in industrial units where such a high proportion of people will never qualify for it? It is estimated that barely 50 per cent. of the labour force work it now. Should we not, as in the United States dockyards, opt for a system of sensible consolidated wage rates?
The fourth point which I wish to mention is communication. This obviously leaves much to be desired. There is too much traditional stiff formality and at present the men just do not understand the changes which take place, or what is their objective. A good example of this is the indignation at the increasing ratio of pre-work planning to actual production work. We know that in the United States this has reached a ratio of one to one, which is still far from being the case in Britain, but although the position is understood and broadly accepted


in the United States, there is already bewilderment and cynicism here. Why? How does the Ministry of Defence intend to overcome it? Is not this problem related to the fifth matter which I wish to mention and which is accountability?
Is not a fundamental fault in the present administration to be found in the vast impersonal Civil Service machine of which the yards are a part? Of course, in no sense am I talking personally of anyone in that structure at the moment, but in this impersonal Civil Service machine that source of accountability can be found only away in Bath and Whitehall. If we are to get maximum efficiency, will there not have to be real devolution of responsibility to individual yards and individual sections within individual yards? Is not the key of success having real power of decision making on the spot and the involvement of all workers and management in an easily identifiable team? Do we not at least have to move towards the American pattern of a profit and loss account for each yard as a yardstick for its efficiency?
If we are to get well-informed answers to all these and other questions in the light of new defence policy, would not my hon. Friend and all his advisers and staff welcome a comprehensive independent inquiry into future demands on the yards and the best detailed method of organisation to meet those demands? I know that inquiries of this sort have been held in the past, but the present situation demands a comprehensive inquiry now.
I know that my hon. Friend is deeply concerned about problems which I have mentioned and I therefore hope that he will feel able to welcome this suggestion. The time may well have come for far-reaching reforms giving the yards a new independent structure and opportunities for industrial growth in completely new and as yet unseen civil spheres. My hon. Friend will share with me the utmost respect for the pride and skill of the dockyard workers and the heroic service of their supporting communities in two relatively recent world wars. We in the House owe it them that we think ahead for their future enabling these rich resources of men and facilities to be as relevant in the future as they have been in the past.

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Nayy (Mr. Maurice Foley): My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) has spoken with much eloquence and knowledge of this subject which is befitting a dockyard Member of Parliament, of whom a number are present and for whose presence and interest I am grateful. In the time available I ought to try to deal with some of the matters raised and if I do not deal with them all, I shall write to my hon. Friend later. I ought first to put his comments into their essential perspective.
We will never get anywhere in a discussion about the dockyards unless their Service r´le is recognised from the start. The dockyards exist to maintain, repair and refit ships of the Royal Navy so that the Navy can have the ships it wants at the time it wants to meet its operational commitments. The dock yards therefore give an essential service to the Navy.
They cannot be considered in isolation from the Navy. It follows from this that the dockyards cannot, except within comparatively narrow limits, cut, trim or re-arrange their programme to make the most economic use of their resources and manpower. Essentially, the dockyards exist for the naval programme, not the other way round. This is a fundamental point, and until we get it clear anything else must be based on a false premise. Hon. Members will appreciate that this puts the dockyards at a considerable planning disadvantage over commercial firms, which act independently, on the narrow basis of the most efficient use of their resources.
Dealing with other points raised, there was firstly the question of the supervision and the relationship between the Admiral Superintendent and the General Manager. The principle flows from this prior consideration as to why the dockyards exist. The Admiral Superintendent of a dockyard remains a feature even in the new functional dockyard structure and organisation. The reason for this is implicit in the nature of the dockyard.
There is a great deal more to a dockyard than just an industrial organisation. There is the whole complex of stores


organisation concerned with every aspect of stores supplies to the Fleet. In addition to the ships under repair the dockyards are used as a base for operational ships, all in need of day-to-day administration. The Admiral Superintendent is the focal point of these activities and not the least of his tasks is to ensure harmonious working between the Fleet and the civilian organisation.
My hon. Friend referred to the dockyard load and the possibilities of looking for outside work. He must recognise that we try to make the best possible use of each dockyard's resources. A dockyard plan covering all the yards is worked out and regularly brought up to date. This plan is on the basis of the best and most up-to-date information available, and apportions out to each dockyard an equitable and realistic distribution of dockyard work.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House recently attended a presentation on the way a dockyard works, and the way in which the load is determined, and the factors which influence the variation of this load. Any planning reproduced is not ad infinitum, it is not immutable and may be altered.

Dr. David Owen: Would my hon. Friend agree, however, that although we accept the necessity for this plan to be changed, in Devonport Dockyard there is very considerable concern about the decision on "Ark Royal"? When are we to hear whether the refit of this ship, on which the economy of the City is dependent, will go ahead or will be cancelled.

Mr. Foley: I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have raised this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate my dilemma, firstly that there is a political decision to be taken in terms of reducing commitments. The question for the Navy, and all the Services, is to determine in the light of new commitments what is required to fulfil obligations.
This is a matter which takes time to work out and cannot be done overnight. Clearly I am exercised about this and concerned over it. I have visited the dockyard at Devonport and spoken to the workers, and given them certain assurances and hope that I will be able

to honour them. This is not the moment for me to state categorically what will happen. At the moment the refit continues, and this is as far as I can go.
I was talking about the commercial work being introduced into the dockyards. If one accepts that no matter how good one's planning may be there will be times when there will be peaks and troughs in terms of work load then there will be times when certain skills will be over-used and others will be under-used. In planning one's work load, one has to have regard to the basic physical facilities available in a yard, the various skills in the manpower force and their competencies. These are all taken into consideration in planning the load, but, inevitably, from time to time there will be troughs.
In considering whether or not we can cater for outside civil work, we have to bear in mind all the time our primary role. If we offer to do outside work, it must be subordinate to the work of repairing and refitting our own ships. Delivery dates cannot be guaranteed, and the yards may not have the equipment required or the capital necessary to alter existing equipment to do outside work. I do not hold out much hope that the position can be improved upon very much. All that we can do is look again at our planning procedures to see whether there is anything more that we can do in terms of forecasting.
It must be borne in mind that, from time to time, ships come in for immediate repair and refits. Others that were expected do not come in on time and can be anything up to two months late. All this produces difficulties and frustrates those concerned with work loads.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): We are worried about the lack of forecasting. In Devonport Dockyard, there are at least 2,600 men who are anxious to know what is to happen. Can we have an assurance that there will be plenty of notice if it is found necessary to have redundancies?

Mr. Foley: I will come to that point in a moment. I want to pick up one or two other points first.
My hon. Friend has referred to experience in the United States, but I would urge him to be a little cautious, because.


if he takes it too far, he will find that there is a system in the United States not merely of profit and loss but of hire and fire in labour relationships. He must be highly selective in the parts of the system which he wants to see introduced into ours.
As for Report No. 18 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, that was clearly introduced last July. A number of matters stem from it, particularly the grouping of industrial workers, the proposals for non-industrialisation, questions of incentive schemes, and so on. On some of them, one can move quickly. Others of them are rather longer term. There is an increasing interest on the part of the unions in their National Whitley Council, which I happen to chair, in their desire to move more quickly in this sphere of activity.
Mention was made of bonus schemes, and this is a matter about which I am very anxious. The Dockyard Incentive Bonus Scheme was introduced at the beginning of 1966. There is still time to amend, revise and improve it, and I hope that that will happen.
Finally, I turn to the effect of the defence cuts upon the dockyards. The Prime Minister announced on 16th January that there would be defence cuts and, in particular, a reduction in the United Kingdom bases. The previous forecast reduction of 80,000 civilians, which included 30,000 in the United Kingdom, will now be achieved significantly earlier than the mid-1970s. Obviously some part of this cut will fall on the dockyards and other naval establishments in this country. We are at present engaged in a study to define exactly what the effects will be. This will take some months to work out, since it is a complicated and serious matter. I cannot at present give any further details, except to say that I recognise fully the importance of coming to a decision as quickly as possible, evaluating it in the light of prevailing economic and social circumstances, and making sure that there is the maximum consultation with unions, both nationally and locally, before schemes are implemented.
I want to join with my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those who work in the dockyards. There are many officers

and ratings all round the world who would want to pay tribute, too, to the work done in the dockyards on their ships. It is the skill and expertise of the people in the dockyards which make it possible for the Navy to do its job and fulfil the commitments laid upon it.

11.31 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers: Although the hon. Gentleman has answered many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), so far as I am concerned, it has been a very unsatisfactory debate.
He kindly asked us to come to a meeting—I could not come in the morning, but I came in the afternoon—and he gave us all these points then. What we are worried about is the future.
On 29th December, I sent the Minister a telegram. As I thought that the Government were in economic difficulties, I sent it reply-paid to ensure getting an answer, but still no decision has been made. He has not confirmed or denied that the "Ark Royal" and now the "Eagle" are to be refitted.
When we had the debate on the 27th November, I remember that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West was worried because of the scrapping of H.M.S. "Victorious", but he was told that that would create a certain amount of work in the actual dismantling of it.
I have a letter from the right hon. Gentleman of 4th December definitely stating—the hon. Gentleman frightened me a bit this evening when he said he hoped to be able to keep his word— that there would be a full order book for five years. We are expecting the Government to keep their word. It may not be possible for them to carry on with the carrier, but what we say is that there are 240 ships in the Royal Navy and we want to see that we have sufficient to keep the present labour force occupied. If the present labour force cannot be fully occupied, he must let us know in plenty of time what the run down is to be and over what period of time so that we can press for industry to come particularly to Portsmouth.
The South-West Regional Council has been suggesting that this must become a development area. If the hon. Gentleman can give us some categorical details


soon—we have already waited long enough—we could perhaps get this status granted and we could press ahead. Plymouth does not want spoonfeeding. We want action so that we know where we stand.
I would plead with the hon. Gentleman, who is a sympathetic man—and I know the difficult position he is in— to discuss this with the Minister of Defence and see that we are not kept waiting any longer.
The Government are playing with men's lives. It makes a lot of difference to the city. We have had a dockyard in Plymouth for 300 years and the city has good or bad——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock.